agricultural situation in indiaagricultural situation in india vol. lxxii june, 2015 no. 3 contents...

AGRICULTURALSITUATION IN INDIAAGRICULTURALSITUATION IN INDIA

JUNE, 2015


JUNE, 2015


JUNE, 2015

GENERAL SURVEY OF AGRICULTURE

FARM SECTOR NEWS RELEASES

ARTICLES

Growth of Rice Production in Tamil Nadu:Progress and Prospects

A Study of Growth of Value Productivityand Component Analysis of Important Crops in Himachal Pradesh:1951-52 to2010-11

Socio-Economic Anlysis of Celery Crop in Punjab

AGRO ECONOMIC RESERCHFarmers’ Income in India:Evidence from Secondary Data

COMMODITY REVIEWS FoodgrainsCommercial Crops

TRENDS IN AGRICULTURE: Wages & Prices

Agricultural Situationin India

VOL. LXXII June, 2015 No. 3

CONTENTS

PAGES

GENERAL SURVEY OF AGRICULTURE 1

FARM SECTOR NEWS RELEASES 4

ARTICLES

Growth of Rice Production in Tamil Nadu: Progress and 8Prospects — Dr. Jothi Sivagnanam and Dr. K. Murugan

Socio-Economic Analysis of Celery Crop in Punjab— 16Sukhjinder Singh and Sharanjit Singh Dhillon

A Study of Growth of Value Productivity and Component 24Analysis of Important Crops in Himachal Pradesh: 1951-52to 2010-11 —S.P. Saraswat and Hemant Sharma

AGRO-ECONOMIC RESEARCH

Farmers’ Income in India: Evidence from Secondary Data— 30A.E.R.U., I.E.G.., New Delhi

COMMODITY REVIEWS

Foodgrains 71

Commercial Crops :

Oilseeds and Edible Oils 73

Fruits and Vegetables 73

Potato 73

Onion 73

Condiments and Spices 73

Raw Cotton 73

Raw Jute 73

Editorial Board

ChairmanSangeeta Verma

EditorP. C. Bodh

Asstt. Economic AdviserYogita Swaroop

Economic OfficerProsenjit Das

Officials Associated in Preparation of thePublication

D.K. Gaur — Tech. Asstt.S.K. Kaushal — Tech. Asstt. (Printing)

Uma Rani — Tech. Asstt. (Printing)V.M. Shobhana — P.A.

Cover Design By:Yogeshwari Tailor— Asstt. Graph

Publication DivisionDIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS

AND STATISTICS

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

AND COOPERATION

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

C-1, HUTMENTS, DALHOUSIE ROAD,NEW DELHI-110 011PHONE : 23012669

(Email: [email protected])

SubscriptionInland Foreign

Single Copy : `40.00 £ 2.9 or $ 4.5Annual : `400.00 £ 29 or $ 45

Available from

The Controller of Publications,Ministry of Urban Development,

Deptt. of Publications,Publications Complex (Behind Old Secretariat),

Civil Lines, Delhi-110 054.Phone : 23817823, 23819689, 23813761,

23813762, 23813764, 23813765

©Articles Published in the Journal cannot bereproduced in any form without the permissionof Economic and Statistical Adviser.

STATISTICAL TABLESPAGES

Wages

1. Daily Agricultural Wages in Some States—Category-wise. 751.1. Daily Agricultural Wages in Some States—Operation-wise. 75

Prices

2. Wholesale Prices of Certain Important Agricultural 77 Commodities and Animal Husbandry Products at Selected Centres in India.

3. Month-end Wholesale Prices of Some Important 80 Agricultural Commodities in International Market

during the year 2015.

Crop Production

4. Sowing and Harvesting Operations Normally in Progress 82 during July, 2015.

Abbreviations used

N.A. — Not Available.N.Q. — Not Quoted.N.T. — No Transactions.

N.S. — No Supply/No Stock.R. — Revised.M.C. — Market Closed.

N.R. — Not Reported.Neg. — Negligible.Kg. — Kilogram.

Q. — Quintal.(P) — Provisional.Plus (+) indicates surplus or increase.

Minus (–) indicates deficit or decrease.

The Journal is brought out by the Directorateof Economics and Statistics, Ministry ofAgriculture, it aims at presenting a factualand integrated picture of the food andagricultural situation in india on month tomonth basis. The views expressed, if any,are not necessarily those of the Governmentof India.

NOTE TO CONTRIBUTORS

Articles on the State of Indian Agriculture andallied sectors are accepted for publication in theDirectorate of Economics & Statistics,Department of Agriculture & Cooperationmonthly Journal “Agricultural Situation in India”.The Journal intends to provide a forum forscholarly work and also to promote technicalcompetence for research in agricultural and alliedsubjects. Good articles in Hard Copy as well asSoft Copy ([email protected]) in MSWord, not exceeding five thounsand words, maybe sent in duplicate, typed in double space onone side of foolscap paper in Times New Romanfont size 12, addressed to the Editor, PublicationDivision, Directorate of Economics and Statistics,M/o Agriculture, C-1, Hutments Dalhousie Road,New Delhi-110 011 along with a declaration bythe author(s) that the article has neither beenpublished nor submitted for publicationelsewhere. The author(s)should furnish theire-mail address, Phone No. and their permanentaddress only on the forwarding letter so as tomaintain anonymity of the author while seekingcomments of the referees on the suitability of thearticle for publication.

Although authors are solely responsible forthe factual accuracy and the opinion expressed intheir articles, the Editorial Board of the Journal,reserves the right to edit, amend and delete anyportion of the article with a view to making itmore presentable or to reject any article, if notfound suitable. Articles which are not foundsuitable will not be returned unless accompaniedby a self-addressed and stamped envelope. Nocorrespondence will be entertained on the articlesrejected by the Editorial Board.

An honorarium of Rs. 2000/- per article ofatleast 2000 words for the regular issue andRs. 2500/- per article of at least 2500 words forthe Special/Annual issue is paid by the Directorateof Economics & Statistics to the authors of thearticles accepted for the Journal.

June, 2015 1

General Survey of Agriculture

Third Advance Estimates of Production for 2014-15

The 3rd Advance Estimates of production of major cropsfor 2014-15 have been released by the Department ofAgriculture & Cooperation on 13th May, 2015. It may benoted that production of kharif crops during 2014-15suffered due to bad monsoon. Unseasonal rains/hailstormduring Feb-March 2015 had significant impact onproduction of rabi crops. As a result of setback in kharif aswell as rabi seasons, the production of most of the crops inthe country has declined during 2014-15.

As per 3rd Advance Estimates for 2014-15, total food-grains production in the country is estimated at 251.12million tonnes which is lower by 13.92 million tonnes thanthe last year's record foodgrains production of 265.04million tonnes.

Total production of rice is estimated at 102.54 milliontonnes which is lower by 4.11 million tonnes than the lastyear's record production of 106.65 million tonnes.

Production of wheat estimated at 90.78 milliontonnes is lower by 5.07 million tonnes than the recordproduction of 95.85 million tonnes achieved during2013-14.

Total production of coarse cereals estimated at 40.42million tonnes is also lower by 2.87 million tonnes thantheir production during 2013-14.

Production of pulses estimated at 17.38 milliontonnes is lower by 1.87 million tonnes than their productionduring the last year.

With a decrease of 5.37 million tonnes over the lastyear, total production of oilseeds in the country is estimatedat 27.38 million tonnes.

Production of sugarcane is estimated at 356.56million tonnes which is higher by 4.42 million tonnes ascompared to last year.

Total production of cotton estimated at 35.32 millionbales (of 170 kgs each) is marginally lower than last yearbut higher by 2.85 million bales than the average productionof last 5 years.

Production of jute & mesta is estimated at 11.49million bales (of 180 kg each) which is marginally lowerthan their production during the last year.

Area Coverage during 2014-15(3rd Advance Estimates)

As per 3rd Advance Estimates for 2014-15, area sownunder all rabi crops taken together has been 608.2 lakhhectares at all India level as compared to 643.9 lakhhectares during last year.

Area reported was lower by 6.6 lakh ha. under rice,2.0 lakh ha. under jowar, 2.4 lakh ha. under maize, 15.4lakh ha. under gram and 6.5 lakh ha. under rapeseed &mustard as compared to last year. However, area coverageunder wheat and urad has been higher by 7.2 lakh hectaresand 1.4 lakh hectares respectively.

Trends in Foodgrain Prices

During the month of April, 2015, the all India IndexNumber of Wholesale Price (2004-05=100) of foodgrainsincreased by 0.64 percent from 235.6 in March, 2015 to237.1 in April, 2015.

The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) number of cerealsincreased by 0.22 percent from 230.9 to 231.4 and WPI ofpulses increased by 2.44 percent from 257.8 to 264.1 duringthe same period.

The Wholesale Price Index number of wheatincreased by 0.42 percent from 215.5 to 216.4 and riceincreased by 0.17 percent from 233.6 to 234.0 during thesame period.

Weather, Rainfall and Reservoir Situation during May,2015

Cumulative Pre-Monsoon Season (March to May) rainfallfor the country as a whole during the period 01st March to27th May, 2015 is 42% higher than Long Period Average(LPA). Rainfall in the four broad geographical divisionsof the country during the above period was higher thanLPA by 100% in Central India, 95% in North West Indiaand 48% in South Peninsula but lower by 06% in East &North East India.

Out of a total of 36 meteorological sub-divisions,34 sub-divisions received excess/normal rainfall and02 sub-divisions received deficient rainfall.

Central Water Commission monitors 91 majorreservoirs in the country which have a total live capacityof 157.80 BCM at Full Reservoir Level (FRL). Live storagein these reservoirs as on 28th May, 2015 was 43.14 BCMas against 44.59 BCM on 28.05.2014 (last year) and 31.82BCM of normal storage (average storage of the last 10 years).

2 Agricultural Situation in India

Current year's storage is 97% of the last year's and 136%of the normal storage.

Economic Growth

The growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) atconstant (2011-12) market prices is estimated at 7.4 percent in 2014-15 (advance estimates), as compared to6.9 per cent and 5.1 per cent in 2013-14 and 2012-13respectively, (Table 1).

The growth rate of Gross Value Added (GVA) atconstant (2011-12) basic prices for agriculture & alliedsectors, industry sector and services sector are estimatedto be at 1.1 per cent, 5.9 per cent and 10.6 per centrespectively, in 2014-15 compared to 3.7 per cent, 4.5 percent and 9.1 per cent respectively, in 2013-14 (Table 1).

The growth rate of GVA at constant basic prices for thefirst, second and third quarters of 2014-15 is estimated at 7.0per cent 7.8 per cent 7.5 per cent respectively, compared to7.2 per cent,7.5 per cent and 6.6 per cent respectively, duringthe corresponding quarters of previous year (Table 2).

The final consumption expenditure as a percentageof GDP increased from 69.7 per cent in 2012-13 to 7.10per cent in 2013-14 and further to 72.1 per cent in2014-15. Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) as apercentage of GDP declined from 31.4 per cent in 2012-13to 29.7 per cent in 2013-14 to 28.6 per cent in 2014-15.

There has been a decline in the rate of gross domesticsaving from 33.9 per cent of the GDP in 2011-12 to 31.8per cent in 2012-13 and further to 30.6 per cent in

2013-14. This was caused mainly by the sharp decline inthe rate of household physical savings.

Agriculture and Food Management

All India Production of Foodgrains

As per the 3rd advance estimates released by Ministry ofAgriculture on 13.05.2015 production of total foodgrainsduring 2014-15 is estimated at 251.1 million tonnescompared to 265.6 million tonnes in 2013-14and 257.1 million tonnes in 2012-13 (Table 3).

Procurement

Procurement of rice as on 08.05.2015 was 26.3 milliontonnes during kharif marketing season (October-September) 2014-15 and procurement of wheat was22.5 million tonnes during rabi marketing season(April-March) 2015-16 (Table 4).

Off-take

Off-take of rice in February 2015 was 29.0 lakh tonnes.This comprises 24.3 lakh tonnes under TPDS and 4.7 lakhtonnes under other schemes. In respect of wheat, the off-take was 24.0 lakh tonnes comprising of 14.4 lakh tonnesunder TPDS and 9.6 lakh tonnes under other schemes.

Stocks

Stocks of foodgrains (rice and wheat) held by FCI as onMay 1, 2015 were 56.5 million tonnes, which is lower by10.4 per cent compared to 63.1 million tonnes as on May,2014 (Table 5).

TABLE 1 GROWTH OF GVA AS BASIC PRICES BY ECONOMIC ACTIVITY (AT 2011-12 PRICES) (In Per Cent)

Growth Share in GVA

Sector 2012- 2013- 2014-15 2012- 2013- 2014-13 14 (AE) 13 14 15(AE)

Agriculture, forestry & fishing 1.2 3.7 1.1 17.7 17.2 16.2Industry 2.4 4.5 5.9 32.3 31.7 31.2

Mining & quarrying -0.2 5.4 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.9Manufacturing 6.2 5.3 6.8 18.3 18.1 18Electricity, gas, water supply & other 4.0 4.8 9.6 2.4 2.3 2.4utility servicesConstruction -4.3 2.5 4.5 8.6 8.3 8

Services 8.0 9.1 10.6 50.0 51.1 52.6Trade, hotels, transport, communication 9.6 11.1 8.4 18 18.8 18.9and services related to broadcastingFinancial, real estate & professional 8.8 7.9 13.7 19.5 19.7 20.9servicesPublic administration, defence and 4.7 7.9 9.0 12.5 12.6 12.8other services

GVA at basic prices 4.9 6.6 7.5 100.0 100.0 100.0GDP at market prices 5.1 6.9 7.4 --- --- ---

Source: CSO. AE: Advance Estimates.

June, 2015 3

TABLE 2 QUARTER-WISE GROWTH OF GVA AT CONSTANT (2011-12) BASIC PRICES (in per cent)

Sectors 2013-14 2014-15

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

Agriculture, forestry & fishing 2.7 3.6 3.8 4.4 3.5 2.0 -0.4Industry 4.8 4.0 5.0 4.3 6.1 6.0 3.9Mining & quarrying 0.8 4.5 4.2 11.5 5.1 2.4 2.9Manufacturing 7.2 3.8 5.9 4.4 6.3 5.6 4.2Electricity, gas, water supply & other utility 2.8 6.5 3.9 5.9 10.1 8.7 10.1servicesConstruction 1.5 3.5 3.8 1.2 5.1 7.2 1.7Services 10.2 10.6 9.1 6.4 8.6 10.1 13.5Trade, hotels, transport, communication and 10.3 11.9 12.4 9.9 9.4 8.7 7.2services related to broadcastingFinancial, real estate & professional services 7.7 11.9 5.7 5.5 11.9 13.8 15.9Public administration, defence and Other 14.4 6.9 9.1 2.4 1.9 6.0 20.0ServicesGVA at basic prices 7.2 7.5 6.6 5.3 7.0 7.8 7.5

Source : CSO.

TABLE 3 PRODUCTION OF MAJOR AGRICULTURAL CROPS (3rd Adv. Est.)

Crops Production (in Million Tonnes)

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15(Final) (Final) (3rd AE)

Total Foodgrains 257.1 265.6 251.1Rice 105.2 106.7 102.5Wheat 93.5 95.9 90.8Total Coarse Cereals 40.0 43.3 40.4Total Pulses 18.3 19.8 17.4Total Oilseeds 30.9 32.8 27.4Sugarcane 341.2 352.1 356.6Cotton 34.2 35.9 35.3

TABLE 4 PROCUREMENT IN MILLION TONNES

Crop 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Rice# 34.2 35.0 34.0 31.8 26.3* --Wheat@ 22.5 28.3 38.2 25.1 28.0 22.5*

Total 56.7 63.4 72.2 56.9 54.4 22.5

#Kharip Marketing Season (October-September), @ Rabi Marketing Season (April-March), *Position as on 08.05.2015

TABLE 5 OFF-TAKE AND STOCKS OF FOODGRAINS (Million Tonnes)

Crops Off-take Stocks2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 May 1, May 1,

(Till Feb.) 2014 2015

1. Rice 32.1 32.6 29.2 30.3 20.4 17.02. Unmilled Paddy# 12.3 8.03. Converted Unmilled Paddy in 8.2 5.3 terms of Rice4. Wheat 24.3 33.2 30.2 24.6 34.4 34.1

Total (Rice & Wheat) (1+3+4) 56.4 65.9 59.8 54.9 63.1 56.5

# Since September, 2013, FCI gives separate figures for rice and unmilled paddy lying with FCI & state agencies in terms or rice.


Farm Sector News Releases

Assistance Provided to Farmers of Hilly States

Financial assistance for purchase of electrical pump-setsupto ten horsepower is provided to the farmers underNational Mission on Oilseeds and Oil Palm (NMOOP) @50% of the cost limited to Rs. 15,000 per pump-set andunder National Food Security Mission (NFSM) @50% ofthe cost limited to Rs. 10,000 per pump-set. The seedsubsidy provided to the farmers by the Department ofAgriculture & Cooperation under various schemes is asunder:

Crops Rate of Subsidy

(Rs. per Quintals)#

Rice Hybrid 5000

Rice High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) 1000

Wheat HYVs 1000

Coarse Cereals Hybrid 5000

Coarse Cereals HYVs 1500

Pulse HYVs 2500

Oilseeds HYVs 1200

Oilseeds Hybrid 2500

# or 50% of cost whichever is less

Additional transport subsidy on movement of seedsof all crops excluding potato is available to North - EasternStates including Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu &Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Hill areas of West Bengal asunder:

(i) 100% difference between road and railtransportation charge is reimbursed to implementingStates/Agencies for movement of seeds produced fromoutside the State to the identified State Capital/DistrictHeadquarter.

(ii) Actual cost restricted to maximum limit ofRs.120/- per quintal whichever is less, is reimbursed formovement of seeds transported within the State from StateCapital/District Headquarter to sale outlets/sale counters.

With a view to increase investments in agriculturalsector, accelerate agricultural growth and to raise farm

incomes, Government of India provides financialincentives, grants, concessions and subsidies on agriculturalinputs under various programmes/schemes which have beenrecently restructured and grouped into following Mission/Schemes:

1. National Crop Insurance Programme (NCIP)

2. Krishonnati Yojana (Central Sector)3. Krishonnati Yojana (State Plan)

4. Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY)

5. Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana

Setting up of Price Stabilization Fund

The Government has approved the setting up of a PriceStabilization Fund (PSF), as a Central Sector Scheme, witha corpus of Rs.500 crores, to support market interventionsfor price control of perishable agri-horticulturalcommodities during 2014-15 to 2016-17. Initially the fundis proposed to be used for market interventions for onionand potato only.

PSF Scheme provides for advancing interest free loanto State Governments/Union Territories(UTs) and Centralagencies to support their working capital and other expenseson procurement and distribution interventions for suchcommodities.

The Price Stabilization Fund will be managedcentrally by a Price Stabilization Fund ManagementCommittee (PSFMC), which will approve all proposalsfrom State Governments and Central Agencies. The PSFwill be maintained as a Central Corpus Fund by SmallFarmers Agribusiness Consortium (SFAC), which will actas Fund Manager. Funds from this Central Corpus will bereleased in two streams, one to the State Governments/UTs as a onetime advance to each State/UT based on itsfirst proposal and the other to the Central Agencies. TheCentral Corpus Fund has already been established by SFACin 2014-15.

The one time advance to the States/UTs based ontheir first proposal along with matching funds from theState/UT will form a State/UT level revolving fund, whichcan then be used by them for all future market interventionsto control prices of onions and potatoes based on approvalsby State Level Committee set up explicitly for this purpose.In case of North Eastern States, the State level corpus willcomprise of 75% funds from Centre and 25% from theState.

June, 2015 5

While the advance is returnable, the CentralGovernment will share 50% of losses (75% in case of NEStates), if any, at the time of settlement of the advance on31st March, 2017. The Central Government likewise alsointends to share the profits, if any, in the same ratio. TheStates could also request Central Agencies to undertakesuch operations on their behalf to be supported out of theState corpus. Additionally, the Centre can also requisitionthe Central Agencies like Small Farmers' Agri BusinessConsortium (SFAC), National Agricultural CooperativeMarketing Federation of India Ltd. (NAFED), etc. toundertake price control operations for onion and potato.

Procurement of these commodities will beundertaken directly from farmers or farmers' organizationsat farm gate/mandi and made available at a more reasonableprice to the consumers to manage prices of perishable agri-horticultural commodities.

Reclamation of Land Unsuitable for Agriculture

As per the latest report on Land Use Statistics for 2011-12compiled by Directorate of Economics & Statistics,Ministry of Agriculture, out of total Geographical Area of3287.3 lakh hectares in the country, 1467.5 lakh hectaresis non-agricultural land/ area. Area under non-agriculturalland consists of forests, area under non-agricultural uses,Barren and un-culturable land, permanent pastures andother grazing land.

The reclamation of area under Non-Agricultural Landis generally not viable due to ecological and costconsiderations. However, to improve fertility of soils inthe country, the Government under the component of SoilHealth Management of National Mission on SustainableAgriculture (NMSA) is promoting soil test based balancedand integrated nutrient management through setting up/strengthening of soil testing laboratories, establishment ofbio-fertilizer and compost units, use of micronutrients,trainings and demonstrations on balanced use of fertilizersetc. Recently, a National Mission on Soil Health Card hasbeen launched to provide soil tested based fertilizerrecommendation to all the farmers in the country. Further,Ministry of Rural Development is implementing anIntegrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP)for development of rainfed/degraded areas.

Promoting Judicious Use of Chemical Fertilizers andPesticides

Government is promoting safe and judicious use ofpesticides through Central Integrated Pest ManagementCentres situated in different parts of the country. Farmer'sfield Schools are conducted to create awareness onIntegrated Pest Management strategies. State Governmentsand stakeholders are being exhorted to support a 'GrowSafe Food' campaign centred around five essentialprinciples of judicious use-application of pesticides on the

right crop, against pests for which the pesticide has beenapproved, at the right time, in approved doses, and as perapproved method of application through training and mediacampaigns in Gram Panchayats and rural areas. Advisorieshave been sent to pesticides dealers to educate them onjudicious use of pesticides in accordance with labelinstructions.

Government is promoting and recommending soiltest based balanced and integrated nutrient managementthrough conjunctive use of both inorganic and organicsources of plant nutrient management to sustain good soilhealth and higher crop productivity.

Under soil health management (SHM) componentof National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA),financial assistance for training to farmers including fielddemonstrations on balanced use of fertilizers is provided@ Rs.10,000 per training for 20 or more participants.Financial assistance for frontline field demonstrations isalso provided @ Rs.20,000 for frontline fielddemonstrations.

Under National Mission of Sustainable Agriculture,there is a provision of financial assistance under CapitalInvestment Subsidy Scheme (CISS) through NABARD forestablishment of bio-fertilizer/bio-pesticides productionunits (200 TPA) in which 100 percent assistance is providedto State Government up to a maximum limit of Rs.160 lakhper unit and @ 25 percent cost limited to Rs.40 lakh toindividuals/private agencies.

There is no scientific evidence that about 75 percentof the cultivable land in the country has been adverselyaffected by excessive use of chemical fertilizers andpesticides and has high level of toxins. However,indiscriminate and imbalanced use of fertilizers coupledwith low addition of organic matter over years may resultinto multinutrient removal is greater than the addition.

PMSBY, PMJJBY & APY are Path BreakingInitiatives for Social Security, says Shri Radha MohanSingh, Union Minister for Agriculture

Shri Radha Mohan Singh, Union Minister for Agriculture,has said that Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana,Pradhan Mantri Jivan Jyoti Bima Yojana and Atal PensionYojana, three social security schemes are the result of thefarsightedness of our Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modijiwho is committed to the economic empowerment of thepoor.These unique schemes would be path breakinginitiatives towards providing social security at a verynominal cost to the millions of countrymen. Shri RadhaMohan Singh was addressing the function organised at theTamil nadu launch of the schemes at Chennai. Full text ofhis speech is as follows:

"It gives immense pleasure to be part of this historicalevent in which Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima


Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Jivan Jyoti Bima Yojana andAtal Pension Yojana are going to be launched. Thesethree social security schemes are the result of the far-sightedness of our Prime Minister Shri NarendraModiji who is committed to the economicempowerment of the poor.

These unique schemes would be path breakinginitiatives towards providing social security at a verynominal cost to the millions of countrymen. These aredesigned to provide utmost convenience with auto debitfacility from the bank account of the subscriber. PradhanMantri Suraksha Bima Yojana and PM Jivan Jyoti BimaYojana would provide insurance to individuals in anyunfortunate event causing death or disability. The AtalPension Yojana would address the problem of incomesecurity during old age. There are millions of senior citizenswho do not have any secure source of income during theripe years of their life. You are aware how our elders arefinding it helpless to live without any source of income.These schemes have been designed in such a way as toprovide a very convenient delivery mechanism. Theseschemes will also address issues like very low coverage oflife or accident insurance as well as old age income securityproducts in this vast country.

Let me now briefly explain to you, how innovativelythese schemes are designed. Pradhan Mantri Suraksha BimaYojana will provide insurance coverage of Rs.2 lakhs forindividuals on payment of just Rs.12/- per annum. Thisscheme can benefit all the savings bank account holders inthe age group of 18-70 years. Public sector generalinsurance companies or other general insurance companiesthat are willing to offer insurance coverage to individualson similar terms would offer and administer this scheme.The scheme is delivered through banks including regionalrural banks as well as cooperative banks.

Pradhan Mantri Jivan Jyothi Bima Yojana is anotherwell thought out scheme which offers Life Insurancecoverage of Rs.2 lakhs for any savings bank holders in theage group of 18-50 years on payment of just Rs.330/- peryear. This scheme is offered through LIC of India or otherLife Insurance companies that are willing to offer lifeinsurance on similar terms.

Coming to Atal Pension Yojana, it focuses on theunorganized sector where nearly 400 million employeesrepresenting more than 80 per cent of all employees areengaged. Atal Pension Yojana would provide a fixedminimum pension Rs.1000 to Rs.5000 per month startingfrom the age of 60. The amount of pension will depend onthe monthly contribution by the employee and the age atwhich the employee subscribes the insurance. In any casethe individual will have to subscribe under Atal PensionYojana for a minimum of 20 years. The most significantpart of this yojana is co-contribution by government ofRs.1000/- per annum or 50% of the total contribution

whichever is lower, for the first 5 years if one joins thescheme before the end of this year, that is 31st December,2015.

I am sure you will appreciate that ours is a greatcountry with enormous social capital. Due to the change infamily and social structure, the social security inherent inour society is slowly getting weak. As a result, a largenumber of people are exposed to un-foreseen eventualitieswhich leave them helpless and insecure. The three yojanasbeing launched in this state will go a long way in addressingthe growing insecurity among the poor and needy. I thankour Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modiji who has presentedthis country with these three unique schemes and usheredin a new era of providing social security en-mass. I thankprofusely His Excellency the Governor of Tamil naduShri Rosiah ji who is going to launch these unique yojanasin your state. I also thank Shri Vishwanathan ji for hispresence here. I thank you one and all for being here onthis historic occasion marking a beginning for a new era ofsocial security in this country."

Odisha Assured Increased Allocation of Fertilizers &Included in National Food Security Mission to PromoteSugarcane Cultivation

Union Agriculture Minister, Shri Radha Mohan Singh hasassured adequate allocation of fertilizer to Odisha forensuing Kharif Season and inclusion of the state underNational Food Security Mission to promote cultivation ofsugarcane.

He said, in view of high priority to eastern states, thecentre will provide all possible assistance to Odisha fordevelopment of Agriculture.

During a call on meeting by Chief Minister ofOdisha, Shri Naveen Patnaik, Shri Radha Mohan Singhdirected deparment of fertilizer to allocate 10.75 lakh tonfertilizers to the state as per state's requirement. He alsodirected officials of his Ministry to ensure timely deliveryof allocated fertilizers to the state.

Shri Radha Mohan Singh also announced inclusionof Odisha under National Food Security Mission to promotecultivation of sugarcane in the states. Only twelve stateswere getting assistance under the mission from 2014-15.

In view of good scope of horticulture produce in thestates, he assured assistance for setting up of cold storagein six districts of Odisha.

Union Minister for Agriculture launches the websiteof Multi-State Cooperative Societies

A portal for Multi State Cooperative Societies,http:/mscs.dac.gov.in has been launched by Union Ministerfor Agriculture ShriRadha Mohan Singh. This websitewould provide easy access of information relating to thestatus of the societies to the applicants as well as to thegeneral public.

June, 2015 7

Initially, the website shall facilitate access toinformation like status of applications, notices, orders,certificates issued to the societies and contact details ofofficers. The website shall also provide link to the websitesof the offices of State Registrars of Cooperative Societies.Subsequently,the website shall be upgraded by inductingother web enabled services for the applicants as well as forthe registered societies.

The "Office of Central Registrar of CooperativeSocieties" functioning under the Department of Agriculture& Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, handles the workof registration and management of multi state cooperativesocieties. The number of multi state cooperative societieshas crossed 1400 on account of which it has become crucialto have a speedy mechanism for disposal of applicationsfor registration/amendment, effective monitoring andrecord keeping. At present the information like status of

applications, copies of notices/orders and list of multi statecooperative societies is available on the ministry's web-site. However owing to manifold increase in the workrelated to multi state cooperative societies, need for separateweb-site for the multi state cooperative societies was felt.

Export of Potato is Free without any QuantitativeRestrictions

At present, export of potato is free without any quantitativerestrictions. Earlier Minimum Export Prices (MEP) of US$450/MT on Potato was imposed on 26th June, 2014 toaugment domestic supplies in view of rising retail andwholesale prices in domestic markets. However, in recenttimes, keeping in view the surplus supply of potato in thedomestic markets and consequent rapid fall in price (Indomestic and retail), MEP on export of Potato was removedby Department of Commerce vide Notification No. 112(RE-2013)/2009-14 dated 20th Feb, 2015.


Abstract

Paddy cultivation is the most important agriculturaloperation in the country, not only in terms of food security,but also in creating better livelihoods, opportunities forrural population. It plays a major role in the people's diet,economy and employment. Nearly 90 percent of paddy isproduced and consumed within the country. It contributesnearly 15 percent of India's annual Gross Domestic Product(GDP) and provides 31 percent of the total calorie supply.The main objective of this paper is analysis the growthtrend of paddy production in Tamil Nadu for the past threedecades. The area under paddy crop occupies highest shareamong foodgrains in Tamil Nadu due to the adoption ofmodern technology. A study of the period of 30 years showsthat during the earlier period of 1985-90, most of thedistricts in Tamil Nadu had shown increasing trend interms of area and production of paddy than later period2011-14, during which the growth rate of productiondeclined in majority of the districts in Tamil Nadu exceptin Virudhunagar and Thiruvallure.

Introduction

Agricultural sector plays a crucial role in India's economicdevelopment. The share of agricultural sector in GrossDomestic Product (GDP) declined from 55.1 percent in1950-51 to 13.4 percent in 2013-14.About 63 percent ofpopulation is depending upon the agricultural sector fortheir livelihood. The achievement of the high growth ratein the agricultural sector in the long-run is due to regionalgrowth of the State's economy. Before Independence,there was massive famine in Bengal; the trend continuedupto 1960s. During this period, there was heavy foodshortage in India and the domestic agricultural sector wasunable to solve the problem, then the idea of HYV seedsin agriculture had been implemented. The HYV seedprogramme gave the best results in agricultural production.Foodgrains output is increased from 50 MT (MillionTonnes) in 1950-51 to 255.56 MT in 2012-13 (EconomicSurvey, 2014). It increased five times over a period of sixdecades. The remarkable changes in foodgrains productionwere attributed to Green Revolution.

In India, the production of rice and wheat hasmore than doubled between 1960 and 2013. The totalannual foodgrain production rose from 77 MT to 255.5MT during this period. The area under HYVs increased

from 56.38 lakh ha (15.11 percent) in 1970-71 to 321.62lakh ha (74 percent) in 1996-97 and it further increased to396.24 lakh ha in 2012-13. Productivity and productionincreased mainly due to the use of HYV seeds.

Foodgrain Production

India has made enormous progress towards food securityover a period of six decades. Indian population has tripled,but foodgrain production has more than quadrupled: Therehas been a significant increase in availability of foodgrainper capita. The initial increase in production was centeredon the irrigated areas of the Indian states of Punjab, Haryanaand western Uttar Pradesh. Both the farmers and theGovernment officials focused on farm productivity andknowledge transfer and India's total foodgrain productionsoared. Per hectare yield of Indian wheat was on an average0.8 tonnes in 1948 and that increased to 4.7 tonnes in 1975from the same land. Such rapid growth in farm productivityenabled India to become self-sufficient by 1970s. It alsoempowered the small farmers to seek further means toincrease food production per hectare. By 2000, Indianfarms were adopting wheat varieties capable of yielding 6tonnes of wheat per hectare. After the success of agriculturalpolicy in wheat, India's Green Revolution technologyspread to rice production. However, since irrigationinfrastructure was very poor, Indian farmers continuedfarming mostly with tube-wells to harvest ground water.When gains from the technology reached their limits in thestates of initial adoption, the technology spread in 1970sand 1980s to the states of eastern India(Bihar,Odhisha andWest Bengal). The lasting benefits of the improved seedsand new technology expanded principally to the irrigatedareas which account for about one-third of the harvestedcrop area. In 1980s, Indian agricultural policy shifted to"evolution of a production pattern in line with the demandpattern" leading to a shift that emphasized to otheragricultural commodities like oilseeds, fruit and vegetables.Farmers began to adopt improved methods andtechnologies in dairy, fisheries and livestock sectors to meetthe diversified food needs of India's growing population.As with rice, the lasting benefits of improved seeds andfarming technologies now largely depend on whether, Indiadevelops infrastructures such as irrigation network, floodcontrol systems, reliable electricity production capacity,all season rural and urban highways, cold storage, modernretail and competitive buyers of produce from the Indian

Growth of Rice Production in Tamil Nadu: Progress and Prospects

DR. K. JOTHI SIVAGNANAM* AND DR. K. MURUGAN**

*Head (Economics), Director i/c, AERC, University of Madras, Chennai, India.**Research Associate, Agro Economic Research Centre, University of Madras, Chennai.

June, 2015 9

farmers. India's agricultural economy is undergoingstructural changes. This is not because of reducedimportance of agriculture, or as a consequence ofagricultural policy. This is largely because of the rapidgrowth in services, industrial output, and non- agriculturalsectors in India after the economic reforms period.

Area under foodgrains cultivation in India ispresented in Table 1. The total area under foodgrainsproduction increased from 97.32 million ha in 1950-51to 120.16 m. ha in 2012-13. Out of that, during that period,the share of paddy crop area increased from 30.81 m. ha

to 42.41m. ha. The percentage share of paddy crop areahas increased to 35.29 percent from 31.66 percent. Thearea under wheat has increased from 9.75m. ha to 29.65m. ha in the same period. That is, the area under wheatincreased from 10.02 percent to 24.68 percent. The totalshare of cereals area increased from 78.23 m. ha in 1950-51 to 96.69 m.ha in 2012-13. But there was noimprovement in percentage share of production. Thepulses increased from 19.09m .ha to 23.47 m. ha.Altogether, the area under total foodgrains increased by23 m. ha during the six decades.

TABLE 1: AREA UNDER FOODGRAINS CULTIVATION IN INDIA: 1950-51 TO 2012-13

Area in Million Hectares Percentage Share to Total FoodgrainsYear Rice Wheat Coarse Total Pulses Total Rice Wheat Coarse Total Pulses

Cereals Cereals Foodgrains Cereals Cereals

1950-51 30.81 9.75 37.67 78.23 19.09 97.32 31.66 10.02 38.71 80.38 19.62

1960-61 34.13 12.93 44.96 92.02 23.56 115.58 29.53 11.19 38.90 79.62 20.38

1970-71 37.59 18.24 45.95 101.78 22.54 124.32 30.24 14.67 36.96 81.87 18.13

1980-81 40.15 22.28 41.78 104.21 22.46 126.67 31.70 17.59 32.98 82.27 17.73

1981-82 40.71 22.14 42.45 105.3 23.84 129.14 31.52 17.14 32.87 81.54 18.46

1990-91 42.69 24.17 36.32 103.18 24.66 127.84 33.39 18.91 28.41 80.71 19.29

2000-01 44.71 25.73 30.26 100.7 20.35 121.05 36.94 21.26 25.00 83.19 16.81

2005-06 43.66 26.48 29.04 99.18 22.39 121.57 35.91 21.78 23.89 81.58 18.42

2010-11 42.56 29.25 27.64 99.45 26.28 125.73 33.85 23.26 21.98 79.10 20.90

2011-12 43.97 29.9 26.37 100.52 26.22 125.03 35.17 23.91 21.09 80.40 20.97

2012-13* 42.41 29.65 24.64 96.69 23.47 120.16 35.29 24.68 20.51 80.47 19.53

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Note: Data for 2012-13 are based on Advance Estimates.

TABLE 2 : FOODGRAINS PRODUCTION IN INDIA: 1980-81 TO 2012-13

in Thousand Tonnes Percent Share to Total Foodgrains

Year Rice Wheat Coarse Pulses Foodgrains Rice Wheat Cereals PulsesCereals Cereals

1980-81 53631.7 36312.6 29017.7 10626.8 129588.8 41.39 28.02 22.39 8.20

1990-91 74291.4 55134.5 32699.1 14265.3 176390.3 42.12 31.26 18.54 8.09

2000-01 84976.6 69680.8 31081 11075.4 196813.8 43.18 35.40 15.79 5.63

2005-06 91793.4 69354.5 34069.3 13384.4 208601.6 44.00 33.25 16.33 6.42

2010-11 95979.8 86874 43397.1 18240.9 244491.8 39.26 35.53 17.75 7.46

2011-12 104322 93903.6 42008.5 17207.9 257441.9 40.52 36.48 16.32 6.68

2012-13 104398.7 92458.2 40058.4 18446 255361.2 40.88 36.21 15.69 7.22

Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Note: 1. All India data are inclusive of Union Territories. 2.The States of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand were carved out of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, respectively during 2000-01.The

production figures of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh for the period 1980-81 to 1999-2000 refer to States.


The foodgrains production in India is given inTable 2. The share of foodgrains production hasincreased from 129588.8 thousand tonnes in 1950-51 to255361.2 TT in 2012-13.Paddy accounted for a major sharein the total foodgrains. Paddy production has declined from41.39 percent in 1980-81 to 40.88 percent in 2012-13. Butthe share of wheat production from 36312.6 (28 percent)to 92458.2 thousand tonnes (36 percent). It is nearlyincreased to 56146 thousand tonnes.The increase infoodgrain production was largely due to the GreenRevolution.

Trends of Paddy Production

Paddy cultivation is the most important agriculturaloperation in the country, not only in terms of food security,but also in creating better livelihoods, opportunities forrural population. It plays a major role in the people's diet,economy and employment. Nearly 90 percent of paddy isproduced and consumed within the country. It contributesnearly 15 percent of India's annual Gross Domestic Product(GDP) and provides 31 percent of the total calorie supply.

The area under paddy increased from 31.29 million ha in1953-54 to 42.56 million ha.(125.73 million ha. offoodgrains) in 2010-11, while productivity increased from902 kg/ha to 2240 kg/ha during the period. The area underpaddy accounted for 33.85 percent of India's food cropsand 42.79 percent of its cereal crops area during 2010-11.

Growth of Paddy Crop in Tamil Nadu

Details of the foodgrains production in Tamil Nadu during1980-81 to 2012-13 are given in Table 3. The area underfoodgrain cultivation increased from 5487 million ha. in1980-81 to 8617 m. ha. in 2000-01. Thereafter, it declinedto 6294 m. ha in 2012-13. But during 2011-12, the areaunder foodgrains was 9640.6 ha. The area under paddy cropoccupies highest share among foodgrains in Tamil Nadu.The area under paddy crop increased from 75.80 percent(4159 m. ha.) in 1980-81 to 85.49 percent (7366 m. ha.) in2000-01. Thereafter, it is declined to 69.90 percent (4399m. ha.) in 2012-13. The area under paddy is the highest dueto the adoption of modern technology in agriculture.

Table3 AREA UNDER FOODGRAINS IN TAMIL NADU: 1980-81 TO 2012-13

Area in Million Hectares Percentage Share to Total Foodgrains

Year Rice Wheat Coarse Cereals Pulses Food Grains Rice Coarse Pulses

1980-81 4159 0.5 1180.6 146.7 5486.8 75.80 21.52 2.67

1990-91 5782.4 0.2 1307.3 348.2 7438.1 77.74 17.58 4.68

2000-01 7366.3 0.1 937.8 312.7 8616.9 85.49 10.88 3.63

2005-06 5220 - 730.2 177 6127.2 85.19 11.92 2.89

2010-11 6139.4 - 1878.2 296 8313.6 73.85 22.59 3.56

2011-12 6893.9 - 2347.3 399.5 9640.6 71.51 24.35 4.14

2012-13 4399.5 - 1645.4 249.1 6294.1 69.90 26.14 3.96

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Note: Data for 2012-13 are based on Advance Estimates.

TABLE 4 AREA, PRODUCTION OF FOODGRAINS IN TAMIL NADU: 1950-51 TO 2012-13

Paddy Foodgrains Percent share in Paddy

Year Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production(in ha.) (in tonnes) (kg / ha) (in ha.) (in tonnes) (kg / ha)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1950-51 1686764 2458530 1457 4040821 4499420 1114 41.74 54.64

1960-61 2517615 3559300 1414 5101349 5302460 1039 49.36 67.13

1970-71 2635718 5000920 1897 5109729 6706780 1313 51.58 74.57

1980-81 2299460 4278820 1861 4246750 5651440 1331 54.15 75.72

1990-91 1855741 5782440 3116 3885132 7495640 1929 47.77 77.14

2000-01 2080010 7366320 3541 3500788 8616783 2461 59.42 85.49

2005-06 2050455 5209433 2541 3316637 6116145 1844 61.82 85.18

2009-10 1845553 5665258 3069 3034124 7504548 2474 60.83 75.49

June, 2015 11

2010-11 1905726 5792415 3039 3173775 7594120 2393 60.04 76.272011-12 1903772 7458657 3918 3208669 10151780 3164 59.33 73.74

2012-13 1493276 4050334 2712 2647586 5605436 2117 56.40 72.25

Source: Department of Economics and Statistics, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-18.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Table 4 gives details of area and production offoodgrains in Tamil Nadu during 1950-51 to 2012-13.Thearea of foodgrains cultivation increased from 40.40 lakhha. in 1950-51 to 51.09 lakh ha. in 1970-71. After that, itdeclined to 30.34 lakh ha. in 2009-10. During 2011-12,the area increased to 32.08 lakh ha. and again declined to26.47 lakh ha. in 2012-13. The foodgrains productionincreased from 44.99 lakh tonnes in 1950-51 to 67.06 LTin 1970-71. After that, it increased to 86.17 LT in 2000-01.Again it declined to 75.94 LT in 2010-11. During 2011-12,there was tremendous increase in rice production;itincreased to 101.51 LT but it declined to 56.05 LT in2012-13. This implies that whenever there was increasethe area under foodgrains, automatically there was increasein production of paddy. It may by note that higher yieldand area expansion have led to increase in foodgrainsproduction in Tamil Nadu.

Paddy occupied the single most important componentin Tamil Nadu agriculture. The area under paddy increasedfrom 16.86 lakh ha. (41.74 percent) in 1950-51 to 26.35lakh ha.(56.51 percent) in 1970-71.At the same time, paddyproduction also increased by 50.00 lakh tonnes (74.57percent) in 1970-71 against 24.58 lakh ha. (54.64 percent)in 1950-51. It may be noted that there was two foldincreases in production over the thirty years. Thereafter,although the area declined to 20.80 lakh ha. (59.42 percent)but the production increased to 73.66 lakh tonnes (85.49percent) in 2000-01. Again the area declined to 18.45 lakhha. (60.83 percent) production declined to 56.65 lakhtonnes (75.49 percent) in 2009-10.The area and productionincreased to 19.03 lakh ha. (59.33 percent) and 74.58 lakhtonnes (73.74 percent) in 2011-12. During 2012-13, itdeclined to 14.93 lakh ha. (56.40 percent) and 40.50 lakhtonnes (72.25 percent). The area under paddy increasedfrom 41.74 percent in 1950-51 to 54.15 percent in 1980-81.The percentage share of paddy in foodgrains also increasedfrom 54.64 percent to 75.72 percent the same period. Againthey increased to 61.82 percent and 85.18 percentrespectively in 2005-06. After that, they declined to 56.40percent and 72.25 percent during in 2012-13respectively.Thus, we find that paddy accounted for morethan 75 percent of the total foodgrain output in Tamil Nadusince 1970s.This is largely because of the adoption of HYVseeds, use of more chemical fertilizers and water. Butproduction of paddy increased at a declining rate mainlybecause of the shrinkage of area under paddy crop.

District-wise Area and Production of Paddy inTamil Nadu

Paddy is a major crop cultivated in many districts of TamilNadu. Farmers cultivate paddy during three seasons: Kar/Kuruvai/Sornavari (April to July), Samba/ Thaladi/Pishanam (August to November) and Navarai/ Kodai(December to March). The ACR of district-wise area,production and productivity of paddy crop in Tamil Naduduring 1985-86 to 2012-13 is shown in Table 5. The areaunder paddy cultivation declined at an AGR of -2.81 percentin 1985-86 to 1989-90 and -1.19 percent in 2000-01 to2009-10. There was a positive growth rate of 1.55 percentin Tamil Nadu during 1990-91 to 1999-2000. It may benoted that there is an expansion of area under cultivationof paddy crop during1990-91 to 1999-2000 period due toadequate supply of water, good rainfall and use of hybridvarieties of seeds in Tamil Nadu.

ACGR of production of paddy in Tamil Naduincreased to 2.68 percent during 1990-91 to 1999-2000 asagainst to 2.46 percent during 1985-86 to 1989-90; in otherwords, the ACR increased to 0.22 percent during 15 yearperiod. Thereafter, the growth rate declined to -2.59 percentduring 2000-01 to 2009-10 and there was some recoveryin the growth rate to -0.09 percent during the past ten years.Tsunami had a negative impact on the production level ofpaddy because of soil erosion in the sea shore areas of thedistricts; Thana and Neelam disasters had also affected theproduction in the cultivated areas.

Among the districts, Erode had the highest ACGR of19.92 percent during 1985-90, followed by Salem(10.72 percent). The ACGR of Thoothukudi (8.91 percent),Madurai (6.34 percent), Dindugal (5.54 percent),Virudhunagar (5.32 percent), Coimbatore (3.69 percent),Dharmapuri (2.73 percent), Sivagangai (2.29 percent),Trichy (1.20 percent), Ramanathapuram (0.70 percent) wasthe result of the extension in the cultivated area during1985-90. During 2000-01 and 2009-10, Krishnagiri (5.27percent), Thiruppur (3.98 percent), Ariyalur (2.82 percent),Thiruvannamalai(2.55 percent), Thoothukudi (2.27 percent),Thirunelveli (1.21 percent), Ramanathapuram (0.75 percent),Pudukkottai(0.05 percent) had exhibited positive growth ratetrend. There was also extension in the cultivation of landarea under paddy cultivation in Ramanathapuram from0.70 percent in 1985-90 to 0.75 percent in 2000-10. InThoothukdui, the area under cultivation declined from8.91 percent to 2.27 percent and in Virudhunagar, it declinedto 0.23 percent from 5.32 percent.


TABLE 5 DISTRICTS-WISE AREA, PRODUCTION AND YIELD OF PADDY CROP IN TAMIL NADU: 1985-86 TO 2009-10 (ACGR)

Name of the Area Production YieldsDistricts 1985-86 1990-91 2000-01 2010-11 1985-86 1990-91 2000-01 2010-11 1985-86 1990-91 2000-01 2010-11

to to to to to to to to to to to to1989-90 1999-200 2009-10 2012-13 1989-901999-2000 2009-10 2012-13 1989-901999-2000 2009-10 2012-13

Kancheepuram -7.23 -4.60 -3.71 -6.69 -3.84 -4.23 -2.69 -3.06 3.65 0.38 1.06 3.88

Thiruvallur - 0.90 -1.39 -2.00 - 7.72 -2.48 6.29 - 6.77 -1.10 -1.02

Cuddallore -6.85 -4.48 -0.25 -1.12 -4.17 -3.24 -2.59 4.01 2.87 1.29 -2.34 -8.50

Villupuram - 3.07 -0.33 -8.30 - 3.56 -0.87 -8.17 - 0.48 -0.54 -4.64

Vellore -30.14 3.73 -2.71 -6.17 -25.73 7.97 -4.33 0.00 6.43 4.09 -1.66 2.66

Thiruvannamalai - 6.21 2.55 -9.90 - 6.30 2.77 -3.09 - 0.08 0.22 -3.56

Salem 10.72 4.47 -6.14 -27.04 15.74 7.04 -6.17 -28.98 4.50 2.46 -0.03 1.17

Namakkal - -2.71 -6.73 -26.66 - 3.54 -6.87 -27.88 - 6.43 -0.14 -2.61

Dharmapuri 2.73 6.25 -9.63 -19.33 5.61 7.63 -8.36 -16.80 2.78 1.29 1.40 4.17

Krishnagiri - - 5.27 2.81 - - 6.21 0.98 - - 7.39 0.93

Coimbatore 3.69 -0.16 -14.88 -6.83 -1.12 1.01 -14.97 -8.80 -4.69 1.16 -0.10 -2.56

Thiruppur - - 3.98 -72.51 - - - -76.58 - - - -14.63

Erode 19.92 -0.63 -4.12 -43.53 21.70 0.03 -4.98 -42.66 1.48 0.66 -0.90 3.70

Tiruchirapalli 1.20 -1.35 -2.30 -12.34 8.85 1.71 -1.72 -19.84 7.56 3.10 0.60 -8.28

Karur - 5.91 -1.77 5.77 - 9.50 -2.33 -13.89 - 3.39 -0.56 -19.32

Perambalur - 2.47 -14.00 -8.52 - 6.27 -13.21 -6.95 - 3.88 0.91 0.72

Ariyalur - - 2.82 -33.85 - - - -40.24 - - - -10.21

Pudukkottai -4.16 3.77 0.05 -3.46 -3.88 7.50 -5.25 4.79 0.29 3.59 -5.30 -10.07

Thanjavur -2.33 -8.50 -1.62 -4.02 6.68 -7.35 -5.07 -3.30 9.23 1.26 -3.51 -9.47

Thiruvarur - 1.30 -0.47 -0.28 - 19.73 -3.09 -12.27 - 18.19 -2.63 -32.54

Nagapatinam - -7.53 -0.58 -3.05 - -7.58 -2.34 -14.41 - -0.05 -1.77 -28.98

Madurai 6.34 -3.63 -4.03 -33.42 13.00 -1.14 -4.57 -37.01 6.26 2.58 -0.56 -3.03

Theni - -0.73 -1.68 -12.40 - 1.84 -0.39 -13.66 - 2.59 1.31 5.28

Dindigul 5.54 2.59 -3.15 -19.77 14.89 5.44 -3.08 -32.03 8.84 2.79 0.08 -6.33

Ramanathapuram 0.70 -1.51 0.75 -3.93 10.39 -10.67 -0.09 -35.37 9.63 -9.30 -0.83 -47.02

Virudhunagar 5.32 -1.21 0.23 32.20 13.82 0.60 -1.21 11.30 8.07 1.83 -1.43 -22.44

Sivagangai 2.29 -0.14 -0.82 -33.96 25.48 -1.83 -4.48 -57.37 22.67 -1.69 -3.69 -23.64

Thirunelveli -8.66 -1.60 1.21 -18.52 -7.30 -0.19 0.49 -1.02 1.51 1.43 -0.71 0.57

Thoothukudi 8.91 -4.80 2.27 -32.21 13.42 -5.28 3.59 -35.16 4.14 -0.50 1.29 -0.38

The Nilgiris -7.82 -3.52 -12.94 -9.93 0.44 1.48 -14.31 -10.38 8.14 5.18 -1.57 5.64

Kanyakumari -0.32 -2.66 -4.90 -9.66 5.33 1.58 -5.55 -6.40 5.67 4.36 -0.69 0.14

Tamil Nadu -2.81 1.55 -1.19 -7.81 2.46 2.68 -2.59 -11.24 5.42 1.11 -1.42 -5.92

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-18

Among the districts of Tamil Nadu, Virudhunagarwas one of the leading districts in production with anACGR of 11.30 percent during 2010-14 followed byThiruvallure (6.29 percent), Thiruvallure (4.79 percent).On the other hand, out of 32 districts the production ofpaddy had exhibited increasing trend in four districts,during the last ten years (2010-14). The dynamics ofcultivation of paddy crop in Tamil Nadu show that therewere wide variations in area and production of paddy cropamong the districts. A study of the period of 30 years showsthat during the earlier period of 1985-90, most of thedistricts in Tamil Nadu had shown increasing trend interms of area and production of paddy than later period2011-14, during which the growth rate of productiondeclined in majority of the districts in Tamil Nadu exceptin Virudhunagar, Thiruvallure and Thiruvallure. Among thedistricts, when we look at the average rate of yield in paddy

crop in Tamil Nadu, Theni had the highest yield rate of5.28 percent during 2010-14, followed by Dharmapuri(4.17 percent), Kancheepuram (3.88 percent), Erode (3.70percent) and Vellore (2.66 percent).

Hybrid Rice Cultivation

The area covered under hybrid rice cultivation in TamilNadu during 2006-07 to 2011-12 is presented in the Table 6.The percentage share of area under hybrid rice cultivationin total area of rice in Tamil Nadu increased to 0.59 percentin 2011-12 against 0.06 percent in 2006-07. That showsthe area under hybrid rice cultivation expanded by 0.53percent between 2006-07 to 2011-12. It also means in away that the state has not evinced much interest in hybridrice technology. Tamil Nadu had only less than one percentof total area under hybrid rice cultivation compared toall-India percentage of 3.5 percent. From the observation,

June, 2015 13

it may be noted that the state could not adopt the hybridrice technology even after two decades. The technology didnot spread too many districts of Tamil Nadu in a big way.

The area expanded under hybrid rice cultivation wasonly 0.01 percent:Thiruvarur (265 ha), Kancheepuram (248ha.), Theni (173 ha.), Thanjavur (116 ha.) and Perambalur(100 ha.). The percentage share of hybrid rice in total areaunder rice recorded the highest percentage (0.28 percent)in Thiruvarur (5330 ha.), followed by Theni (1618 ha.)with 0.08 percent Pudukkottai (1494 ha.) with 0.08 percentand Cuddalore (1250 ha) with 0.07 percent in 2011-12.

The lowest share was recorded by Erode (4.38 ha.)at 0.0002 percent. Districts like Kancheepuram, Perambalurand Thanjavur stopped cultivating hybrid rice during2011-12 period. The above empirical evidence shows thatmany districts adopted hybrid rice varieties only to a smallextent. Even today some of the districts in Tamil Nadu likeThiruvallur, Karur, Dindugal, and Kanyakumari did notadopt the hybrid rice technology,mainly because of lack ofawareness among the farmers, shortage in the supply ofhybrid seeds, technical problems, and high cost ofcultivation and absence of enthusiasm from governmentside.

TABLE 6 AREA UNDER HYBRID RICE IN TAMIL NADU DURING 2006-07 TO 2011-12 (AREA IN HA.)

Districts 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Actual % Actual % Actual % Actual % Actual % Actual %

Kanchiuram 248 0.01 361 0.02 523 0.03 - - - - - -

Thiruvallur - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cuddalore 10 0.001 120 0.01 210 0.01 0 0.00 1600 0.08 1250 0.07

Villupuram - - - - 50 0.003 21 0.001 - - - -

Vellore 48 0.002 64 0.004 102 0.01 - - - - - -

T.V.Malai - - - - 50 0.003 77 0.004 1002 0.05 - -

Salem 70 0.004 150 0.01 200 0.01 155 0.01 155 0.01 - -

Namakkal 46 0.002 58 0.003 150 0.01 - - - - - -

Dharmapuri 5 0.0003 - - 40 0.002 100 0.01 - - - -

Krishnagiri - - - - - - 55 0.003 - - - -

Coimbatore - - - - 50 0.003 - - - - 230 0.01

Erode - - - - 120 0.01 32 0.002 - - 4.38 0.0002

Trichy - - - - 20 0.001 - - - - - -

Perambalur 100 0.01 - - 250 0.01 - - - - - -

Karur - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pudukkottai 20 0.001 120 0.01 615 0.03 566 0.03 480 0.03 1494 0.08

Thanjavur 116 0.01 - - 125 0.01 25 0.001 - - - -

Nagapattinam - - 20 0.001 1250 0.06 1500 0.08 - - 247.75 0.01

Thiruvarur 265 0.01 410 0.02 675 0.03 785 0.04 - - 5330 0.28

Madurai - - 20 0.00 20 0.001 - - - - - -

Theni 173 0.01 579 0.03 625 0.03 4840 0.26 - - 1618 0.08

Dindigul - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ramnad - - 50 0.003 110 0.01 50 0.003 90 0.005 129 0.01

Sivaganga - - 50 0.003 160 0.01 750 0.04 - - 280 0.01

Virudunagar - - - - 20 0.001 - - - - - -

Tirunelveli - - - - 280 0.01 - - - - - -

Toothukudi - - - - 80 0.004 - - - - 709 0.04

Kanyakumari - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tamil Nadu 1101 0.06 2002 0.11 5725 0.30 8956 0.49 3327 0.17 11292.13 0.59

Total Rice Area 1931397 100.00 1789170 100 1931603 100 1845553 100 1905726 100 1903772 100

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-18.


System of Rice Intensification

The adoption of SRI method in Indian soil is a veryslow process when compared to other rice growingcountries. Firstly SRI method was adopted in Tamil NaduAgricultural University, Coimbatore during 2001-02. InIndia, some of the states like Andhra Pradesh, Tirupuraand Tamil Nadu are leading the adoption of that method.In Tamil Nadu, SRI was promoted under the Integrated

Cereal Development Programme. The target was to cover9000 acres during 2004-05.

SRI is a method of adoption for cultivation of riceproduction in India and Tamil Nadu. It creates better soilhealth and reduces inputs like seeds, water, and labour.The farmers got high yields, while using less water andthus succeeded lowering the production costs.By adoptingthis method of cultivation, farmers managed to save as muchas 50% of the water.

TABLE7 TARGET AND ACHIEVEMENT OF AREA UNDER SRI IN TAMIL NADU: (AREA IN LAKH HA.)

Year SRI Area Percent of Area in Rice Percentage of SRITarget Achievement Achievement to total Rice Area

2006-07 - - - 19.31 -

2007-08 7.955 4.476 56.3 17.89 25.02

2008-09 7.5 5.114 68.2 19.32 26.47

2009-10 7.5 6.498 86.64 18.46 35.02

2010-11 8.5 8.499 99.99 20.48 41.5

Source: Season Crop Report of Tamil Nadu, Commisionerate of Agriculture, Chennai-5

Area under SRI cultivation has been increasing overa period of two decades in India and Tamil Nadu. Theaverage area increased from 4.48 lakh ha in 2006-07 to8.50 lakh ha in 2010-11. It accounts for 47.30 percent overthe five year period due serious efforts taken by Departmentof Agriculture, Government of Tamil Nadu. The share ofarea under SRI in total rice area is increasing from 25.02percent in 2007-08 to 41.50 percent in 2010-11. It is notedthat the 17 percent of area under SRI increased over a periodof time. In recent years, Government of Tamil Nadu hasgiven high priority to the SRI farmers. Financial andtechnological support is given to the farmers for theexpansion of area under SRI method in Tamil Nadu.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

The area under paddy crop occupies the highest shareamong foodgrains in Tamil Nadu. The area increased from75.80 percent in 1980-81 to 85.49 percent in 2000-01.Thereafter, it is declined to 69.90 percent in 2012-13. Thearea under paddy is the highest due to the adoption ofmodern technology in agriculture.

Production level increased to 2.68 percent during1990-91 to 1999-2000 from 2.46 percent during 1985-86to 1989-90. Thereafter, it declined to -2.59 percent during2000-01 to 2009-10 and there was some recovery to -0.09percent during the past ten years. Tsunami had a negativeimpact on the production level of paddy because of soilerosion in the sea shore areas of the districts; Thana andNeelam disasters had also affected the production in thecultivated areas.

A study of the period of 30 years shows that duringthe earlier period of 1985-90, most of the districts in

Tamil Nadu had shown increasing trend in terms of areaand production of paddy than later period 2011-14, duringwhich the growth rate of production declined in majorityof the districts in Tamil Nadu except in Virudhunagar andThiruvallure. Among the districts, when we look at theaverage rate of yield in paddy crop in Tamil Nadu, Thenihad the highest yield rate of 5.28 percent during 2010-14,followed by Dharmapuri (4.17 percent), Kancheepuram(3.88 percent), Erode (3.70 percent) and Vellore (2.66percent).

The percentage share of area under hybrid ricecultivation in total area of rice in Tamil Nadu increased to0.59 percent in 2011-12 against 0.06 percent in 2006-07.It also means in a way that the state has not evinced muchinterest in hybrid rice technology. Tamil Nadu had onlyless than one percent of total area under hybrid ricecultivation compared to all-India percentage of 3.5 percent.From the observation, it may be noted that the state couldnot adopt the hybrid rice technology even after two decades.The technology did not spread to many districts ofTamil Nadu in a big way.

The above empirical evidence shows that manydistricts adopted hybrid rice varieties only to a small extent.Even today some of the districts in Tamil Nadu likeThiruvallur, Karur,Dindugal, and Kanyakumari did notadopt the hybrid rice technology,mainly because of lack ofawareness among the farmers, shortage in the supply ofhybrid seeds, technical problems, and high cost ofcultivation and absence of enthusiasm from governmentside.

The share of area under SRI in total rice area isincreasing from 25.02 percent in 2007-08 to 41.50 percent

June, 2015 15

in 2010-11. It is noted that the 17 percent of area underSRI increased over a period of time. In recent years,Government of Tamil Nadu has given high priority to theSRI farmers. Financial and technological support is givento the farmers for the expansion of area under SRI methodin Tamil Nadu.

REFERENCE

Economic Survey, (2014), Ministry of Finance,Government of India, New Delhi

Tenth Five Year Plan, (2002-2007), Ministry ofEconomics and Statistics Implementation, Government ofIndia, New Delhi

Eleventh Five Year Plan Period (2007-12), Ministry

of Economics and Statistics Implementation, Governmentof India, New Delhi

Twelfth Five Year Plan Period (2012-17), Ministryof Economics and Statistics Implementation, Governmentof India, New Delhi

A Statistical Compendium Department ofEconomics and Statistics—Government of Tamil Nadu,Chennai-05

Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, (2013-14),Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India

Season Crop Report of Tamil Nadu, (2013-14),Directorate of Economics and Statistics,Government ofTamil Nadu, Chennai-18


Abstract

The study was conducted with the objective to evaluatethe socio-economics of celery growers in Amritsar districtof Punjab, India. In celery farms, average male memberswere found to be more than their female counterparts.Majority of the farmers were literate. Farming followedby service and business was the main occupation of adultfamily members. All income measures per hectare werefound to be positive for celery crop. 42% and 54% ofselected celery farmers responded regarding availabilityof good quality seed/ seedlings and disease problem inseedlings in the initial stage of sowing of celery croprespectively. Most of the farmers responded for lack ofextension training facilities, un-remunerative price ofproduce, lack of favourable Govt. policies, and lack ofcheap credit from banks for celery farming. StrengtheningR&D work, extension services, training of farmers, andestablishment of regulated markets for better celery farmingwere suggested.

Introduction

The celery plant (Apium graveolens) from Apiaceae familyis a mainly biennial, occasionally an annual yield, widelycultivated for its fleshy leafstalk, used as a vegetable andseeds which yield essential oil. The seed contains 2-3%essential oil and 17-18% fatty oil. The essential oil hasd-selenene, sedlanolide and sedanoic acid anhydridecontributing to its flavour and 60% of d-limonene. Its seedand seed oil is used for flavouring tinned food and sauces.It is also used in pickles. The seed has carminative andnerve stimulant properties; it is used as a neuro-tonic indomestic medicine. The leaves are used in salad and alsocooked as vegetable.

The crop area at present is five thousand ha and isbeing cultivated mainly in the states of Punjab (Jallandhar,Gudaspur and Amritsar Districts), Haryana and westernUttar Pradesh (Ladhwa and Saharanpur Districts). About90% of the total produce comes from Punjab, where it isgrown for production of seed and seed oil and is exportedmainly to USA (http://nhb.gov.in).

The seed contains 2.2% essential oil (2.2 - 3.0 %).The oil is pale yellow in colour, contains d-limonene (60%),ß-selinene (10-12 %), sedanoic acid anhydride (0.5 %) andsedanolide (2.5-3.0 %). The later two components

contribute to its characteristic odour. The leaves are richsource of minerals like Ca, P, Fe, vitamin A and vitamin Cfor which it is consumed in salad.

The dried, ripe seeds are used as spice to flavourfood and liquids; the seed is a stimulant and carminativeand is used as a nerve tonic in indigenous medicine systems.It is also used as a remedy for rheumatism. The seed oil isused for flavouring food items and in the perfumery andpharmaceutical industries. The fatty oil obtained from thefruit is used as an antispasmodic and nerve stimulant.

Estimated production of celery seed oil is about50 t/ annum whereas India produces half of its production.Celery of Indian origin dominates the world market. Indiaexports celery seed to American and European markets.Celery seed has a ready market as it is also used as a sourceof commercial drug Ajmoda and in flavouring tomato juiceand sauces.

Celery crop being a medicinal crop, it is interestingto study the socio- economics characteristics of celerygrowers, economics of growing celery crop and issues/constraints related to this crop. The present study is anattempt in this direction

Methodology

For evaluating the objectives of the study, the data werecollected through personal interview method with the helpof a well structured and pre-tested schedule for the year2012-13. The primary data with respect to costs, returnsand the problems involved in cultivation of celery wascollected from selected celery growers from Punjab.

A field survey was undertaken to work out theeconomics of celery, factors affecting its productivity andthe constraints in the production of this crop in the Punjabstate. Data on area under celery crop was not availablefrom the Department of Agriculture, Punjab. Producers andarea under its production was selected through multistagepurposive sampling. In the first stage, Amritsar districthaving maximum producers and area under celery cropwas selected. Secondly, three blocks (Amritsar, Verka andTarsikka from Amritsar district) having concentration ofcelery growing farmers and area were selected. Celery ismostly grown in pea growing areas and these blocks areknown for pea production. Depending on the number of

Socio- Economic Analysis of Celery Crop in PunjabSUKHJINDER SINGH* AND DR. SHARANJIT SINGH DHILLON**

*Sr. Technical Officer (Agril. Scientist) C.S.I.R.- I.H.B.T., Palampur (H.P.)- 176061** Professor of Economics & Registrar, Guru Nanak Dev University (G.N.D.U.), Amritsar (Punjab).

June, 2015 17

growers and area under celery; three villages from Amritsarblock and one each village from Verka block and Tarsikkablock were selected purposively. Further, 26 farmers fromAmritsar Block, 13 farmers from Verka block and

11 farmers from Tarsikka block were selected. Thecomplete list of selected district, blocks, villages andnumber of respondents is presented in the Table 1.

TABLE 1 DISTRICT-WISE CELERY RESPONDENTS SELECTED FROM CLUSTER VILLAGES

District Block Villages Respondents(Number)

Amritsar Amritsar Fatehpur Rajputan 16

Nangal Dial 5

Ajaibwali 5

Verka Fatehgarh Shukarchakk 13

Tarsikka Rasulpur 11

Total 3 5 50

Data Collection

For collection of primary data, a specially designedschedule was prepared, which was also pre-tested beforedata collection. The respondent farmers were interviewedpersonally for data collection. The relevant informationsuch as household composition, educational profile, landownership, cropping pattern, inputs used in production andoutput obtained pertaining to celery growers of Punjab wascollected. Special emphasis was laid to record data onvarious constraints faced by celery growers of Punjab.

Economics of Celery Crop

The data pertaining to input use pattern in celery farmingof Punjab was collected from the sample farmers for theyear 2012-13. For valuation of various inputs, market priceor cost was used in the analysis. For various machine relatedfarm operations, rental value of farm operation prevailingin the selected villages was used for calculating totalvariable cost. Irrigation cost was worked out by enquiringabout the maintenance cost of submersible pump/ electricmotor on the sample farms (as electricity is free for farmsector in Punjab) and rental value of irrigation appliedthrough generator/ tractor operated generator. Farm labourused in various farm operations was imputed at theprevailing wage rate. Interest on the working capital wascalculated @ 7 per cent for the life period of the celerycrop as per its season. Besides, for bringing out the grossreturns, price realized by the respondent farmers by sellingthe produce was used. Average output obtained wasrecorded on the basis of respondent's perception. Benefitcost ratios were calculated for celery crop to make theresults of the study more specific.

Cost Concepts

Costs were computed as per the guidelines of CACP

(Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices) discussed

below:

(a) Cost A 1:

Includes following costs

(i) Value of hired human labour, (ii) Value of hired bullock

labour, (iii) Value of owned bullock labour, (iv) Value of

owned machinery, (v) Hired machinery charges, (vi) Value

of seed/ seedlings , (vii) Value of manures , (viii) Value of

fertilizers, (ix) Value of plant protection chemicals ,

(x) Irrigation charges, (xi) Depreciation on farm buildings

and implements, (xii) Interest on working capital,

(xiii) Insurance premium (xiv) Land revenue, and

(xv) Miscellaneous expenses

(b) Cost A2: Cost A

1 + rent paid for leased-in

land

(c) Cost B1: Cost A1+ interest on fixed capital

(excluding land)

(d) Cost B2: Cost B

1+ rental value of owned

land + rent paid for leased-in land

(e) Cost C1: Cost B

1 + imputed value of family labour

(f) Cost C2: Cost B

2+ imputed value of family labour

(g) Cost C3: Cost C

2+10 per cent of cost C

2 as

management cost


Income Measures

For working out profitability of celery cultivation in thestudy areas following income measures were worked out:

(a) Family Labour Income (FLI)

It is the return to family labour (including management).

F.L.I. = Gross income - Cost B2

(b) Net Income (NI)

It is the net profit after deducting all cost items i.e., variableand fixed costs from gross income.

NI = Gross income - Total cost (Cost C2)

(c) Farm Business Income (FBI)

It is the disposal income out of the enterprise and is definedas:

FBI = Gross income - Cost A1 (cost A

2 in case of tenant

operated land)

(d) Return Per Rupee (RPR)

Gross Income /ha

RPR = -----------------------------

Total Cost (Cost C2)/ha

Functional Analysis

To examine the factors affecting value productivity ofcelery crop of Punjab, both linear and log-linear productionfunction were fitted and numerous equations were tried bytaking different explanatory variables. Best fit function wasdetermined on the basis of level of significance of theexplanatory variables, the value of coefficient of multipledeterminations (R

2) and the logical signs of the explanatory

variables included in the model. Cobb-Douglas functionof the following form was considered the most appropriatefor the present investigation

nY = A π X

ibi eu

i = 1

Where, Y represented the value productivity perhectare of celery crop under study. XI the selectedexplanatory variables (per hectares); A, the technicalefficiency parameter and bi the coefficient of productionelasticity of the respective variable XI at the mean level ofinput used and output obtained. The 'e' is an error term.The estimated form of the equation becomes

n

Log Y = Log A + Σ bi log x

i + u

i = 1

Log Y = Log A + bi log x

1 + b

2 log x

2 +

... + bn log x

n + u

Function Fitted for Celery Crop was

Log Y = Log A + bi log x

1 + b

2 log x

2 +

... + b8 log x

s + u

Where,

Y = Value productivity per hectare of celery crop(Rs./ha)

X1 = Value of seed (Rs./ha)

X2

= Fertilizers (Rs./ha)

X3 = Plant protection chemical (PPC) measures

(Rs./ha)

X4 = Bullock labour (Rs./ha)

X5 = Irrigations (Rs./ ha)

X6 = Human labour charges (Rs./ha)

X7 = Machine labour charges (Rs./ha)

X8 = Area under crop (hectares)

Statistical Significance of the Estimates

To test the statistical significance of these estimates, t-valueof the estimates was worked out at (n-k) degrees of freedom.The t-value of the regression coefficients (bi) were workedout as under

bit(n–k)

= ————S.E.(bi)

Where S.E. is the standard error of the variable Xi

Coefficient of Determinations (R2)

The coefficient of determination was worked out toestimate the proportion of variations in total output/grossreturns per hectare explained by the different explanatoryvariables, taken together in the analysis. Statisticalsignificance of R2, which examines the goodness of fit ofthe function, was tested by working out F-ratio as follows

R2/k F = ——————

(1 – R2) / n-kWhere,

R2 is the value of the coefficient of multipledeterminations, n is the number of observations and k isthe number of parameters included in the study.

Constraints Analysis

The respondent farmers were asked about the variousconstraints affecting the productivity of celery crop. Simpletabular analysis using averages and percentages was alsocarried out to fulfill the objectives of the study.

June, 2015 19

Result & Discussion

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample CeleryRespondents

It is necessary to look into the various socio-economiccharacteristics of sample farmers before proceeding foranalyzing a particular enterprise undertaken on the farm.This section deals with various socio- economiccharacteristics of sample respondents which includes theirhousehold composition, educational status, occupationalstatus, land details, and cropping pattern followed on theirfarms.

(a) Household Composition

The family composition of the sample households isdisplayed in Table 2. The average number of male members,female members, children (of 12-18 years age) and children(below 12 years age) per farm were found to be 2.72, 2.24,0.70 and 1.10 respectively. Further, the percentage of malemembers, female members, children (of 12-18 years age)and children (below 12 years age) was found to be 40.24%,33.14%, 10.36% and 16.27% respectively for celery farms.

Thus, in celery farms average male members as wellas their percentage were found to be more than their femalecounterparts.

TABLE 2 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION OF SAMPLE CELERY FARMS

Family composition Number per household

Male 2.72 (40.24)

Female 2.24 (33.14)

Children (12- 18 yr) 0.70 (10.36)

Children (below 12 yr) 1.10 (16.27)

Total 6.76 (100.00)

NOTE: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total.

(b) Educational Status

The educational level of a person plays an important rolein adoption of latest farm technology. Therefore, theeducational status of head of the family who acted asdecision maker was enquired from the sample farms. Theeducational status of head of the family members is depictedin Table 3. It was found that 10 % were illiterate, 8% werewho can read & write, 8 % having elementary education,50% were having education up to secondary school and14 % were graduate. Thus majority of the farmers wereliterate.

TABLE 3. EDUCATIONAL STATUS OF HEAD OF THE FAMILY

ON SAMPLE CELERY FARMS

Particulars In percentage

Illiterate 10.00

Read & Write 8.00

Elementary (1 to 5 class) 8.00

Middle (6 to 7 class) 10.00

Secondary (8 to 12 class) 50.00

Graduate 14.00

(c) Occupational Status

The occupational status of adult family members isdisplayed in Table 4. It is clear from the table that farmingis the main occupation for 88.23 % of the celery farmers,whereas only 9.56 % and 2.21 % were engaged in servicesector and petty business.

TABLE 4. OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OF ADULT FAMILY

MEMBERS ON SAMPLE CELERY FARMS

Particulars Occupation/ farm

Farming 2.40 (88.23)

Business 0.06 (2.21)

Service sector 0.26 (9.56)


(d) Land Holding Details

Table 5 shows that the average operational holding was8.02 hectares for celery farms of Punjab. Owned and leasedin land holding for celery farms were 4.50 and 3.52 hectaresrespectively.

TABLE 5. LAND HOLDING DETAILS ON SAMPLE CELERY FARMS

Particulars Hectares per farm

Owned 4.50 (56.11)

Leased in 3.52 (48.89)

Leased out Nil

Average operational holding 8.02 (100.00)


(e) Cropping Pattern and Cropping Intensity

The cropping pattern has been analysed of the sample farmsin order to work out the relative share of various cropsgrown as kharif and rabi crops on the sample farms. Thecropping intensity was worked out to see the number ofcrops grown on the farms. Cropping pattern and croppingintensity of sample celery farms is presented in Table 6.


Table shows that relative share of paddy (90.48%) wasmuch higher than vegetables (3.64%) and fodder crops(5.78%) for kharif season on celery farms.

It is also evident from the table that wheat, potato,pea and celery are the major rabbi crops of celery growingfarms. The relative share of wheat (65.20%), potato(35.89%), pea (35.19%) and celery (25.42%) was muchhigher than fodder crops (5.18%), vegetables excludingpotato and pea crop (3.34%) and winter maize (0.70%) oncelery farms. Cropping intensity during the study periodworked out to be 271.82% on celery farms.

TABLE 6 CROPPING PATTERN AND CROPPING INTENSITY ON

SAMPLE FARMS

Crops Ha per farm

Kharif Crops

Paddy 7.26 (90.48)

Maize 0.01 (0.10)

Vegetables 0.29 (3.64)

Fodder crops 0.46 (5.78)

Rabi crops

Wheat HYV 5.23 (65.20)

Sunflower 0.06 (0.80)

Potato 2.88 (35.89)

Pea 2.82 (35.19)

Other vegetables 0.27 (3.34)

Fodder crops 0.42 (5.18)

Celery 2.04 (25.42)

Winter maize 0.06 (0.70)

Gross cropped area 21.80

Cropping intensity 271.82

NOTE: Figures in parentheses are percentages of the total.

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

Benefit cost ratio (BCR) was undertaken to examine theprofitability from celery crop on sample farm and has beenshown in Table 7.

TABLE 7 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT

MEDICINAL CROPS ON SAMPLE CELERY FARMS

Particulars Per hectare

Human labour (Rs.) 14612

Machine labour (Rs.) 12809

Seed/ seedlings (Rs.) 1669

Fertilizer use (Rs.) 5226

Plant protection chemicals i.e. PPC (Rs.) 399

Irrigations (Rs.) 1957

Interest on variable cost @ 7% p.a. (Rs.) 1283

Total variable cost (Rs.) 37955

Rental value of owned land (Rs.) 15926

Depreciation (Rs.) 7611

Interest on fixed capital @ 12% p.a. (Rs.) 8617

Total cost 69468

Yield (kg/ha)-main product 1758.44

Gross returns (Rs.) 74946

Returns over variable cost (Rs.) 36991

BCR (over total variable cost) 2.009

BCR (over total cost) 1.079

Table reveals that total variable cost of growingcelery, worked out to be Rs. 37955 per hectare. The majorconstituents of total variable cost came out to be humanlabour (Rs. 14612), machine labour (Rs. 12809), fertilizers(Rs. 5226), irrigations (Rs. 1957), planting material/ seed(Rs. 1669.00) and plant protection chemicals (Rs.399.00).Yield of celery on an average was worked out to be 1758.44kg/ha and gross returns were worked out as Rs. 74946/ha.Returns over variable cost for celery crop was worked outat Rs. 36991/ha. BCR (over total variable cost) as well asBCR (over total cost) was 2.009 and 1.079 respectivelyfor celery crop. Returns over variable cost, and BCR (overtotal variable cost) were found to be positive and morethan one respectively for celery crop, which reveals thatfarmers are cultivating this crop to recover variable costsas well as getting returns over variable costs incurred.

Cost Concepts and Income Measures

Cost concepts (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2) and incomemeasures (family labour income, farm business income,net income and return per rupee) for celery crop has beenpresented in Table 8. Overall costs A1, A2, B1, B2, C1and C2 were worked out at Rs. 42850, Rs. 58556,Rs. 51666, Rs. 83298, Rs. 53741 and Rs. 85373respectively for celery crop. Family labour income, farmbusiness income, net income and returns per rupee wereworked out at Rs. (-) 8352, Rs. 16390, Rs. (-) 10427 and0.888 respectively for celery crop. From the analysis, it isclear that family labour income and net income werenegatives for celery crop. Major reason was low marketprices for this crop during the study period. Market pricesare decided by the private players in MAP crop businessbased on the demand projections in the world market.Farmers continue to do farming of these risky and highlyprice volatile crops as during some years it gives high profits.

June, 2015 21

Farmers grow these crops only in some proportion andmajority of the crops are those having minimum supportprice (MSP) like wheat and paddy for having assuredincome.

TABLE 8. COST CONCEPTS AND INCOME MEASURES FOR

CELERY CROP ON SAMPLE FARMS

Per ha

Particulars Celery

Cost Concepts

Cost A1 42850

Cost A2 58556

Cost B1 51666

Cost B2 83298

Cost C1 53741

Cost C2 85373

Cost C3 93911

Income Measures

Family labour income (Rs.) -8352

Farm business income (Rs.) 16390

Net income (Rs.) -10427

Return per rupee (RPR) 0.888

Factors Affecting Productivity of Celery Crop

The discussion in previous section was focused on studyingthe various parameters related to economics of celery crop.Various factors affecting productivity of celery arediscussed in this section. This section will bring out thestrategies needed to augment the value productivity of thesecrops.

The regression coefficients of various explanatoryvariables included in the model for celery crop have beendepicted in Table 8. The table reveals that the value ofadjusted coefficient of multiple determinations (R2) cameout to be 0.072 for celery crop which shows that only7.2 per cent of the variation in the model has been explainedby the explanatory variables included in the model.

TABLE 8. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS OF COBB-DOUGLAS

FUNCTION FOR CELERY CROP

Particulars Celery

Intercept 4.926 (0.679)

Planting material (Rs./ha) 0.013(0.010)

Fertilizers (Rs./ha) 0.035**(0.013)

Plant protection chemicals i.e. PPC (Rs./ha) -0.018* (0.009)

Bullock Labour (Rs./ha) -

Irrigation (Rs./ha) 0.006 (0.055)

Human labour (Rs./ha) -0.031(0.062)

Machine labour (Rs./ha) -0.015(0.081)

Area under crop (ha) -0.005(0.010)

Coefficient of multiple determination (R2) 0.204

Adjusted coefficient of multipledetermination (R2) 0.072

NOTE: Figures in parentheses are standard errors of regression

coefficients

**, *, indicate significance at 1 per cent and 5 per cent level of

significance

The coefficient of expenditure on Fertilizers & FYMwas found to be positive and significant at one per centlevel of significance showing thereby that with increase inexpenditure on Fertilizers & FYM by one per cent theresultant value productivity of celery increases by 0.035per cent. The coefficients of expenses incurred on plantprotection chemicals were negatively related to valueproductivity of celery at five per cent level of significance.It shows the excessive use of PPC on the celery crop. Hence,with increase in expenses on PPC by one per cent, theresultant value productivity decreases by 0.018 per cent.The regression coefficients of other explanatory variablessuch as expenditure on planting material/ seed and irrigationwere found to be positive but non-significant. Thecoefficient of human labour, mechanical labour and areaunder celery crop was found to be negative but non-significant.

Therefore, the explanatory variables affecting thevalue productivity of celery crop positively were found tobe, expenses on Fertilizers & FYM.

Issues/ Problems Related to Celery Farming

Since cultivation of celery farming has both direct andindirect effect on the establishment and working of herbalindustry related to value addition of celery, so it becomesimportant to study the problems/ issues related to the celeryfarming. The problems/ issues highlighted by farmersduring survey are presented in Table 9.


(a) Seed/ Seedling Issues

Certain issues related to seedlings were studied for celerycrop. When asked about the availability of sufficientquantity of planting material, all the farmers of celery farmsresponded for the availability. 42%, 86% and 54% ofselected celery farmers' respondended regardingavailability of good seed/ seedlings, availability of seed/seedlings at reasonable price, and disease problem in seed/

seedlings in the initial stage of sowing of celery croprespectively.

(b) Input Issues

Regarding know- how support from any organization, 70%of celery farmers responded positively. All the celerygrowers responded for availability of inputs (fertilizers/chemicals), whereas regarding availability of labour, 64%responded positively.

TABLE 9. PROBLEMS/ ISSUES RELATED TO CELERY FARMING

Issues/Problems Response

Yes No

A. Seed/ Seedlings Issues:

• Getting seed/ seedlings in sufficient quantity 50 (100) 0 (0)

• Getting good quality seed/ seedlings 21 (42) 29 (58)

• Reasonable price of seed/ seedlings 43 (86) 7 (14)

• Any special subsidy on seed/ seedlings 0 (0) 50 (100)

• Disease problem 27 (54) 23 (46)

B. Input Issues

• Know- how support from any organization 35 (70) 15 (30)

• Availability of inputs (fertilizers/ chemicals) 50 (100) 0 (0)

• Labour availability 32 (64) 18 (36)

C. Agronomic Issues

• Availability of package of practices 18 (36) 32 (64)

• Lack of extension training facilities 42 (84) 8 (16)

• Weed problem 40 (80) 10 (20)

• Insect/pest problem 39 (78) 11 (22)

• Favorable Government Policies 10 (20) 40 (80)

D. Marketing Issues

• Adopting grading system 14 (28) 36 (72)

• Getting prices according to grades 25 (50) 25 (50)

• Marketing through middleman 38 (76) 12 (24)

• Availability of regulated market 0 (0) 50 (100)

• Unremunerative prices 47 (94) 3 (6)

• High cost of marketing of produce 25 (50) 25 (50)

• Own Means of transport 47 (94) 3 (6)

E. Credit Issues

• Acquired loan from bank 23 (46) 27 (54)

• Lack of credit facility 21 (42) 29 (58)

• Lack of cheap credit 36 (72) 14 (28)

NOTE: Figures in parentheses are percentages of the total.

June, 2015 23

(c) Agronomic Issues

When asked about certain agronomic issues, 36% of celeryfarmers reported that there is availability of package ofpractices in local language, 84% respondents were of theview that there is lack of extension training facilities,problem of weed infestation was reported by 80%respondents and 78% responded that there is insect/pestinfestation. Only 20% responded for favour of Govt.policies for celery farming.

(d) Marketing Issues

Marketing issues were also studied for celery crop. 28%of celery growers adopted grading system, 50% weregetting prices according to grades and all the celery growerswere marketing their produce through middlemen. 94%responded there is an un-remunerative price of produce,50% responded that cost of marketing of produce was high;all the respondents were having own means of transportfor the produce.

(e) Credit Issues

When asked about the availability of credit, 46 %respondents said that they avail the facility of crop loanfrom bank, 42% responded that there is lack of creditfacility and 72% responded that there is lack of cheap creditfrom banks for celery farming.

Conclusion

In celery farms average male members as well as theirpercentage were found to be more than their femalecounterparts. In case of educational status of head of thefamily members, 50% having secondary school (8 to 12class) education and 14% were graduates. Farmingfollowed by service and business was the main occupationof adult family members. Owned and leased in land holdingfor celery farms were 4.50 and 3.52 hectares respectively.Cropping intensity during the study period was 271.82%on celery farms. Returns over variable cost for celery cropwas worked out as Rs. 36991/ha. BCR (over total variablecost) as well as BCR (over total cost) was worked out as2.009 and 1.079 respectively for celery crop. Family labourincome and net income were found out to be negatives forcelery crop; major reason was low market prices for thiscrop during the study period. Forty-two percent and 54%

of selected celery farmers' responded regarding availabilityof seed/ seedlings and disease problem in seed/ seedlingsin the initial stage of sowing of celery crop respectively.Eighty-four percent responded that there is lack of extensiontraining facilities, 80% responded that there is problemsof weed infestation and 78% responded that there is insect/pest infestation. Ninety-four percent responded there is anun-remunerative price of produce, 50% responded that costof marketing of produce was high, all the respondents werehaving own means of transport for the produce, and only20% responded for favour of Govt. policies for celeryfarming. Seventy-two percent responded that there is lackof cheap credit from banks for celery farming. Farmerscontinue to do farming of this risky and highly price volatilecrop in some proportion as during some years it is highlyprofitable. For having assured income, most of the cropsgrown by the farmers are those having minimum supportprice (MSP) like wheat and paddy.

Suggestions to Overcome the Constraints:

• More emphasis should be given on R&D to releasenew varities/ seed for better yield and moreresistance from insect- pests and diseases.

• Organizations should provide more extensionservices for better farming practices of celeryfarming.

• Farmers should also be trained for grading practicesof celery produce for having better market prices.

• Govt. should make provision for establishment ofregulated market to curb the malpractices ofmiddlemen.

• Govt. should also make provision for cheapfinancial services to promote celery farming.

REFERENCES

1. National Horticulture Board (2014). Report onCelery. Retrieved from http://nhb.gov.in/report_files/celery/CELERY.htm

2. Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices(2014). Cost Concepts, Directorate of Economicsand Statistics, Govt. of India. Retrieved from http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/Cost_Concept/Cost_Con.pdf


A Study of Growth of Value Productivity and Component Analysis of important Crops inHimachal Pradesh: 1951-52 to 2010-11

S. P. SARASWAT* AND HEMANT SHARMA**

Abstract

The present study is an attempt to investigate the growthof value productivity of five important crops in HimachalPradesh (HP), Viz. wheat, maize, paddy, barley and gramand their contribution in the growth of HP's agriculture.The study also endeavors to examine the influence of areaof production, yield per hectare and changes in croppingpattern on the agricultural output of HP. The data wascollected from Directorate of Land Records, HP over theperiod of 1951-52 to 2010-11. To capture a more clear-cutview, the study period was further segregated into threesub-periods, namely, pre-green revolution period (1951-52 to 1965-66), green revolution period (1966-67 to 1989-90), economic reforms period (1990-91 to 2010-11). Theproductivity is defined as a ratio of output to input andmeasured at constant prices as well as variable prices. Thegrowth rates are calculated using exponential growthformula. The study suggested that more and more areaunder agricultural production should be provided assuredirrigation facility as the future prospect of HP's Agro sectordepends on the extent of area of production. Theagricultural productivity of the State should also beenhanced because there is a very modest possibility toincrease arable land further. Farmers should properly betrained for successful implementation of latest packagesof technology for plant care which help them to go formultiple cropping and crop rotations in HP.

Introduction

Agriculture is the main occupation of the people ofHimachal Pradesh. Himachal Pradesh is the only state inthe country wherein 90 percent population, as per 2011census, lives in rural areas. Therefore, agriculture/horticulture provides direct employment to about70 percent of total workers in the state.

Agriculture happens to be the premier source of stateincome (SGDP). About 15 percent of the total SGDP comesfrom agriculture and its allied sectors. Improvement in theoverall output is possible only through intense activity inagro-sector.The pace of development is largely conditionedat the rate at which productive assets/ resources are createdin the region concerned. Out of the total geographical areaof 55.67 lakh hectare, the area of operation holding is about9.68 lakh hectare and is operated by 9.33 lakh farmers. Onaccount of adverse climatic conditions and uneven

topography, the use of improved technology in agriculture islimited and considerable amount of cereals are imported intothe state every year to meet the food shortages.

Keeping in view the importance of agriculture aquantitative assessment of various factors contributing togrowth of crops output at the state level seems helpful inreorienting the programmes and priorities of agriculturaldevelopment to achieve higher rate of growth. There areso many factors which affect the growth of crop output.The introduction of multiplicity of factors and evaluationoftheir contributions within the framework of somemathematical model, to growth of crop output is, however,limited by the lack of availability of comparable time seriesdata.

There are, in general, three factors normally believedto influence the productivity of a crop, viz.,area, yield andcropping pattern. The interactions among them are alsosupposed to be important which should be taken intoaccount. The endeavor is to study the growth of valueproduction of important crops and their contribution in thegrowth of aggregate output during pre-green revolutionperiod (1951-52 to 1965-66), green revolution period(1966-67 to 1989-90), after economic reforms period(1990-91 to 2010-11) and the overall period (1951-52 to2010-11) in Himachal Pradesh. It is hoped that such a studywill help the state in assessing the development ofagricultural sector and in policy formulation.

Methodology

The study mainly confines to five important crops grownin the state namely wheat, maize, paddy, barley and gram.All these crops together claim more than 82 percent of thetotal cropped area. Detailed statistics in respect of area, yield/production, crop productivity and farm harvest prices werecollected from the Directorate of Land Records, HimachalPradesh (2014) for the period 1951-52 to 2010-11.

In order to carry out a systematic study of importantcrops,the total period has been divided in four sub- periodsas follows:

• Period I: Pre- green revolution period, 1951-52to 1965-66

• Period II: Green revolution period 1966-67 to1989-90

* Agro Economic Research Center, Himachal Pradesh University** School of Business Studies, H.P.University, Shimla 171005

June, 2015 25

• Period III: Economic reforms period, 1990-91 to2010-11 and

• Period IV: Overall period 1951-52 to 2010-11.

Broadly, the present study has been divided in twoanalytical parts:

(a) In the first part, it is proposed to examine the effectof yield on cropping pattern, value productivity perhectare of each crop included in the study. Anestimation is made at variable and constant pricesi.e. anaverage of first three years. The price waskept constant because the objective here has beento examine the effect of yield and shift in thecropping pattern. A rise or fall in prices over timewould have concealed the effect of these factors.The value productivity per hectare was estimatedas under.

Value productivity, V,(Minhas 1966) per hectarefor a particular year may be expressed as:

V = ΣI c

ijp

i / Σ

IA

ij

Here cij is the production of the ith crop for the jth

year, pi is the constant price of the ith crop and A

ij is

the net area sown under selected crop in the statefor the ith year.

In order to examine the rate of growth of valueproductivity, V, per hectare, estimation was madeby fitting an exponential function over a period oftime.

V=V0Bt

Where V= value productivity per hectare

V0 = constant

B=exp (a)

a= the growth rate

t= time variable over the total period, 1951-52 to2010-11.

The natural logarithm (ln) of B was taken to havethe growth rate 'a'.

(b) Another part is to find contribution of differentcomponents to the growth of output in the statewhich was estimated with the help of modeldeveloped by Minhas and Vaidyanathan (1965). Asalready mentioned there are three factors believedto be responsible for the production of crop, viz.,area,yield and cropping pattern, In addition,theinteractions among themselves, within theframework of additive model, also become

important contributing factors. An attempt wasmade to calculate separate contributions of acreage,yield and cropping pattern and their interactions,onthe growth of crop output in Himachal Pradeshduring the four periods as mentioned above. Thecrop-wise analysis of output highlighted someinteresting features that helped in visualizing andinterpreting the results. The additive model maybe described as follows:

Define

Then the total change in agriculture production isgiven by

Pt -P0 = (At- A0)wi ci0 Yi0 + A0wi ci0 (Yit-Yi0) +A0wi (cit- ci0) Yi0 +

(At- A0) wi (cit- ci0) Yi0+ (At- A0) wici0(Yit-Yi0)+ A0wi(cit- ci0) (Yit-Yi0) +

(At- A0) wi(cit- ci0)(Yit-Yi0)

Where Pt = Production at period t

P0 = Production atperiod 0

At = Cropped area at time t

A0 =Cropped area at time 0

Yit = Yield of the ith crop at theperiod t

Yi0 = Yield of the I th crop atthe period 0

cit=Proportion of the areaunder ith cropfor theperiod t

ci0=Proportion of the area under ithcropfor theperiod 0

wi =Weight: (an average of three years of farmharvest prices)

'0'=The Base period and 't' = Current period

In the above decomposition scheme,the first term onthe right hand side is the area effect. This gives us the impactof change in the total agricultural production due to thechange in area assuming that all other variables remainunchanged during this periods. The second term is the yieldeffect on the total agricultural production. Likewise, thethird term reflects the impact of cropping pattern duringthe current period as compared to the base period on theincrease in agricultural production.Fourth, fifth and sixthterms are respectively the first order interactions betweenarea and cropping pattern, area and yield rate and yieldand cropping pattern. These effects signify the influenceof any of the two factors (among Area, Yield and Cropping


pattern) in bringing change in the production. The last termis the second order inter action between the three variables(Area, Yield and Cropping pattern) considered which givesthe mutual inter dependence among the three variables, ifany.

Results and Discussion

Productivity is a concept that expresses the relationshipbetween the quantity of goods produced (output) and thatof resources which produces it. The measurement ofproductivity differs between levels of economic activity,so does its use and its sole purpose at the micro level is to

provide basis for effective management and control ofvarious resources. For this purpose, the productivity maybe defined as a simple ratio of output to input. Here thepurpose is confined to measure the value productivity ofimportant crops during different periods in the state ofHimachal Pradesh. In particular, the growth of valueproductivity of important crops, namely, paddy, wheat,maize, barley and gram,at constant price and variable priceare estimated using exponential growth formula andpresented in Table I. These represent crop-wise growth rateof value productivity per hectare in Himachal Pradesh atconstant prices as well as at variable prices.

TABLE I: CROP-WISE GROWTH RATES OF VALUE PRODUCTIVITY PER HECTARE IN HIMACHAL PRADESH

(Growth rate (%) / annum)

Crop Value Productivity at constant price Value Productivity at variable price

Period I Period II Period III Period IV Period I Period II Period III Period IV

Paddy 3.12 -0.8 1.19 0.32 4.57 3.87 6.11 5.73

Maize 7.57 0.3 0.57 1.73 8.52 5.16 6.3 7.8

Wheat 2.38 1.31 -0.01 1.69 5.72 5.56 6.26 7.63

Barley 3.86 -0.83 -0.31 1.45 8.38 4.56 7.58 8.20

Gram 2.15 -3.5 2.04 0.52 5.89 6.4 8.94 9.30

All crops 4 -0.82 0.82 1.06 5.85 4.94 7.13 7.51

Table I reveals the value productivity at constant andvariable prices for different crops during different studyperiods. The value productivity growth at constant farmprices (an average of first three years of farm harvest prices)were found to be positive for 1st period and IV for all theselected crops. This is because of yield shows an increasingtrend. In Ist period (pre-green revolution period) themaximum growth was shown by maize followed by barley,paddy, wheat and gram. For overall period (1951-52 to2010-11) growth was lower in comparison to first periodand the order of growth slightly changed, namelymaximum growth rate in maize followed by wheat, barleyand paddy. In 2nd period (Green Revolution Period 1966-67 to 1989-90) the maximum growth rate was found inwheat followed by maize while other crops showednegative growth rates. This is because in the greenrevolution period wheat and maize crop benefitted moreby this programme and other crops like Barley and Gramdid not benefit as much by this programme, so the valueproductivity is negative. Secondly, with the introductionof new technology, the area under cash crop shows anincreasing trend due to this, the area under paddy, barley

and gram decreased during this period resulting valueproductivity decreased. Thirdly, the constant prices waslower of Barley and Gram during initial year of 2nd periodbecause during that time these crops are considered roughgrain (mota anaj). In 3rd period the maximum growth wasshown by gram followed by paddy and maize, this ismainly due to higher prices of gram.

Value productivity at the variable prices for all thecrops showed positive growth rate in all the four periods.This is because of the rising trend of prices, the valueproductivity at variable price was significant even for thosecrops which did not show significant rate of growth whenprices were kept constant. Value productivity per hectareworked out with the constant and variable prices did notshow any definite trend in the growth rate of different crops.However, three crops, namely, wheat, maize and paddyhave positive growth rate with constant and variable pricesin all periods, except of constant prices at third period incase of wheat.

The results of decomposition analysis andeffects of various individual and interaction termswi th in the f ramework of addi t ive model ,haspresented in Table II.

June, 2015 27

TABLE II: DECOMPOSITION OF OUTPUT PERCENTAGE ATTRIBUTED TO

Periods Individual Effects Interaction effects

Area Yield Crop Area & Area Yield & AreaPattern Cropping and Cropping Yield &

Pattern Yield Pattern CroppingPattern

Paddy

Period I 47.76 19.77 2.11 2.68 25.16 1.11 1.41

Period II 18.06 39.23 59.38 -4.55 -3 -9.87 -0.05

Period III -27.02 150.95 -8.07 0.69 -13.01 -3.89 -0.03

Period IV 31.56 65.34 -10.27 -7.72 49.09 -15.98 -0.64

Maize

Period I 31.39 33.1 -0.37 -0.42 37.24 -0.44 -0.5

Period II 35.27 40.26 6.88 2.11 12.33 2.41 0.74

Period III -28.79 139.64 -0.72 0.05 -9.95 -0.24 0.01

Period IV 14.3 27.3 1.23 2.02 44.94 3.86 6.35

Wheat

Period I 94.81 0.34 2 2.41 0.42 0.01 0.01

Period II 26.45 40.35 8.25 3.12 15.27 4.76 1.8

Period III -30.37 122.59 12.28 -0.62 -6.2 2.51 -0.13

Period IV 14.06 26.94 1.23 2.1 44.89 4.03 6.72

Barley

Period I 147.2 134.94 -122.02 -50.49 55.83 -46.23 -19.15

Period II 54.75 -36.42 83.3 -22.08 9.66 14.69 -3.9

Period III 55.88 -32.8 77.86 -11.72 4.94 6.88 -1.04

Period IV 71.93 -519.84 208.96 -48.06 11.56 347.34 -79.89

Gram

Period I 36.11 2.45 10.6 33.57 7.76 2.28 7.22

Period II 71.5 -77.37 86.93 -40.86 36.36 44.21 -20.78

Period III 154.7 -145.59 -85.75 69.77 118.81 -65.86 53.75

Period IV 99.01 -184.5 99.47 -89.48 182.66 183.51 -181.67

All Crops

Period I 48.21 24.1 0.23 0.59 27.28 -0.24 -0.16

Period II 30.1 40.67 5.42 3.13 14.85 4.36 1.46

Period III -29.72 132.86 4.68 -0.2 -8.43 -0.84 -0.04

Period IV 14.59 28.46 0.81 1.84 44.97 3.21 6.12


It may be seen from the analysis that the contributionof change in area, yield and cropping pattern are positivetowards the growth of aggregate output of all crops togetherin the state during the pre-Green Revolution Period 1951-52to 1965-66, Green Revolution Period 1966-67 to 1989-90,Economic Reform Period 1990-91 to 2010-11 and OverallPeriod of 1951-52 to 2010-11 except for area in EconomicReform Period where it shows negative contribution of -29.72 percent because the whole of the focus to increasethe aggregate output by productivity. In Economic ReformPeriod (1990-91 to 2010-11), the contribution of theinteraction effect of first order between yield and croppingpattern, second order interaction between area and yield,and third order yield and cropping pattern and fourthinteraction between area, yield and cropping pattern wasnegative. However, in Green Revolution Period and overallperiod all the four interactions were positive. During thefourth period (overall period 1951-51 to 21-11) thecontribution of interaction effect of area and yield wascontributed sufficiently i.e. 44.97 percent which was muchhigher than the contribution of single individual as well asother individual interaction effects. In the entire periodsyield was the main factor responsible for increase inaggregate output. During Economic Reform period theshare of yield towards total production was highest to theextent of 132.86 percent as compared to pre-GreenRevolution Period, Green Revolution Period and overallperiod which were 24.10, 40.67 and 28.46 percentrespectively. The contribution of area towards productionin pre Green Revolution period was highest, accountingfor 48.21 percent followed by 30.10 percent in GreenRevolution Period, 14.59 percent in overall period andminus 29.72 percent in Economic Reform Period. Thechange in cropping pattern was almost same for 2ndperiod (Green Revolution Period) and 3rd period(Economic Reform Period) i.e. 5.42 and 4.68 percentrespectively whereas the contribution of cropping patterntowards growth of output was 0.23 percent during pre-Green Revolution Period and 0.81 in 4th period (OverallPeriod).The all four interaction effects togetheraccounted for 27.47, 23.80, -9.51 and 56.14 percenttowards the additional growth of output in the state,respectively during Pre-Green Revolution Period, GreenRevolution Period, Economic Reform Period and OverallPeriod.

Most of the paddy production came from area andyield and their interaction. Area and yield that is 47.76,19.77 and 25.16 percent respectively during the 1st period(pre-Green Revolution), wherein the cropping pattern hasa negligible contribution of 2.11 percent. In GreenRevolution Period, share of cropping pattern was highest

among all the periods and account 59.38 followed by yield39.23 percent and area 18.06 percent and all interactioneffect contribution was marginally negative. This is becauseof Green Revolution took palce in agriculture whereemphasis has laid on the cropping pattern and yield. In3rd period, Economic Reforms, started with a paradigmshift to use the area for higher value cash crops resultingmore yield for production of paddy and contribution ofyield is 150.59 percent. At Overall Period i.e. 4th Period,yield, area and its interactions are the main factors forproduction of paddy i.e. 65.34, 31.56 and 49.09 percentrespectively.

For maize crop similar trend like paddy was followedbecause of Green revolution and Economic Reforms fullyaffected the maize production.

In case of wheat, contribution of area, yield andcropping pattern in the production of wheat was positivein all the periods. In pre-Green Revolution Period, areawas the main factor, accounting for 94.81 percent share inincrease of wheat output because of staple food crop ofthe people of Himachal Pradesh. During the 2nd studyperiod, area and yield and its interaction (Area and Yield)that accounted for 26.45, 40.35 and 15.27 percentrespectively are the major main responsible factors forincreasing the output of wheat. In 3rd period, EconomicReforms has started and main stress given on yield, thataccounts for 122.59 percent. At Overall Period i.e. 4thPeriod, interaction of area and yield was mainly responsiblefor production of wheat which accounted for 44.89 percent,followed by yield which accounted for 26.24 percent andarea which accounted for 14.06 percent. Other factorscontributed marginally.

In all study periods, area was the main factorresponsible for increase in the out come of barley. Areaand cropping pattern effects show a negative contributionin all study periods.

In case of gram area was mainly responsible forincreasing the out turn of gram. Yield contribution wasalmost negative in all the periods except for the firstperiod where it was marginally positive accounting for2.45 percent. In overall period, the interaction of areaand yield contributed sufficiently accounting for as muchas 182.86 percent.This was followed by third studyperiod where it accounted for 118.81 percent. Thisneutralizes the effect of yield on output which wasnegative during period IV.

Conclusions and Suggestions

It may be noted that the productivity of a particular cropdepends on the availability of irrigation or timely rainfall,

June, 2015 29

fertilizers, application and adoption of other improvedtechniques. Since new agricultural strategy of theGovernment is oriented towards assured water supply, thefuture development of agro sector in the State willultimately depend upon the extent of the area which couldbe brought under assured irrigation. This will not onlyincrease the supply of food grains by bringing in more andmore area under high yielding varieties but farmers toowould be able to adopt better cropping patterns, therebysupplementing cash crop with food crops.

Agricultural development in the State has to bepromoted through enhancement of productivity of thefarms. Since there is little scope of increasing arable landin the State, productivity gains alone can contribute toenhanced production. Nevertheless, on technological frontthe State farmers will have to be trained to use the suitablepackages of technology for plant care which could facilitatethem to go in for double/ triple cropping in a year andbetter rotations of crops in Himachal Pradesh.

For better production of important crops, the timelysupply of inputs like HYV seeds, fertilizers and plantprotection material, in addition to enhanced irrigation facility,are to be ensured by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.These inputs are to be provided at the approachable sites forfarmers in the State. For all this the small farmers of theState should be assisted financially also.

REFERENCES

1. Data collected from Directorate of Land Records,Himachal Pradesh (2014).

2. Minhas, B.S. (1966), Indian Journal of AgricultureEconomics, Vol. XXI, No. 4, Oct.- Nov. (1966)p. 170.

3. Minhas, B.S. and Vaidyanathan, A. (1965), "TheGrowth of output in India1951-54 to 1958-61, Ananalysis by Component Elements" J. Indian Societyof Agricultural Statistics, Vol. XVII, No. 2, Dec(1965).

4. Sharma Dhirendra, Sharma Hemant and SinghVikram (2011) "Growth and Diffusion of e-Journalsin Universities of Western Himalayan Region ofIndia", Electronic Library and InformationSystems,Vol. 45,No.2.

5. Singh, D.V. (1981), "A Component Analysis andValue Productivity Growth of Important Crops inHimachal Pradesh", Agricultural Situation in India,September 1981, Vol. XXXVI, No. 16.

6. Saraswat, S.P. (2012), "A New Paradigm for HillAgriculture: A Study of district Solan in HimachalPradesh", Agricultural Situation in India, Vol.LXVIII, No. 10 (Jan.)


Agro-Economic Research

Farmers' Income in India: Evidence from Secondary Data*

1. Introduction

This study is an attempt to estimate the incomes earned byfarm households in India. The emphasis of the current studyis to look in the evidence on this from the data collected inrecent years. For this purpose, the study estimates incomesof farm households based on the Situation Assess Surveyof farmers conducted during the 70th round of NationalSample Survey (NSS). This survey was conducted overthe period ranging from January 2013 to December 2013by visiting farm households in various regions of Indiatwice. The survey covered 35,200 farmer households across36 states and union territories of India in the first visit whichspanned from January to July 2013 and collectedinformation of incomes generated by farm households inthe reference period of July 2012 to December 2012. Inthe second round of the survey, 34,907 households whichhad been covered in the first round were surveyed andinformation related to incomes generated in the period ofJanuary 2013 to June 2013 was collected. The data wasmade public in December 2014 and thus provides the mostrecent estimates of incomes earned by farmer households.

The current report provides an analysis of variousaspects of incomes of farmer households. A farmerhousehold earns incomes from various sources. The mostimportant source is through cultivation of crops in eitherthe land possessed by the households or in a land leasedby it. The other sources of income include wages and salary.The most common source of these wages is throughagricultural labour in farms owned by other households.The other source of this income is through either casuallabour or regular labour in nonfarm industries. Apart fromthis households might earn incomes through householdnonfarm enterprises. The following subsections providethe background of the survey and the definition of differentcomponents of total income of a farm household.

1.1 The Survey

The 70th round of NSS had a schedule that looked into thesituation of agricultural households. A similar survey wasconducted in 2002-03 during the 59th round of NSS survey.There are a few minor differences in the sample coveredin two surveys. While the first survey used land ownershipas a criterion for a per ha was INR 45,318 across all India.This amount was more than INR 1,00,000 for the states ofKerala (INR 3,57,535) and Tamil Nadu (1,29,369).

• The Gini coefficient of total household income offarm households in India is 0.56. The Gini ofincome from cultivation, income from livestock,income from wages/salary is 0.74, 0.81, 0.96 and0.77 respectively. The Gini correlation between thefour income components and total income is 0.80,0.64, 0.70 and 0.66 respectively.

• On decomposing income inequality, we find thatincreasing share of cultivation income by 1% willincrease Gini by 2.7% Similarly 1% share increasein nonfarm business income will increase Gini by1.6% Increasing 1% share of livestock and wageincome will decrease Gini by 1.1% and 3.2%respectively.

household being referred a farm household, the currentsurvey does not have land ownership as a criterion.Also, the first survey did not have any criterion relatedto value of agricultural produce of a household. Butthe current survey only considered households that hada value of agricultural produce above INR 3000. Sincepossession of land was not required, the recent surveydefines agricultural production unit as a household thatreceives an agricultural produce value greater than INR3000 and having at least one member self-employedin agriculture either in the principal status or insubsidiary status during 365 days prior to the surveydate. In our study, we use farm households to refer tothese households.

The survey collected various information related todifferent aspects of their livelihood from these farmhouseholds. Information was collected on various aspectsrelating to farming and other socio-economic characteristicsof agricultural households. Information was collected fromhouseholds on consumer expenditure, income andproductive assets, indebtedness, farming practices andpreferences, resource availability, awareness oftechnological developments and access to moderntechnology in the field of agriculture, information on croploss, crop insurance and awareness about MinimumSupport Price (GoI, 2014). Our analysis will look primarilyinto the information related to income of the households.The survey collected information on income from varioussources—cultivation, livestock, wages and salary, nonfarmbusinesses and sale and purchase of assets.

*Agricultural Economics Research Unit (AERU), IEG, New Delhi-110 007.

June, 2015 31

1.2 Definition of Income

A farm household earns its incomes from various sources.The current study will analyse the following sources ofincome:

• Income from cultivation—This is the income ahousehold earns from cultivation of various crops.These could be seasonal crops or annual crops.Also, some of these will be food crops, a part ofwhich could be used for own consumption of thehousehold. Cultivation yields some by-productswhich could be sold. The total value fromcultivation is the sum of value from sale of primaryproducts and sale of by-products. The costs incurredin cultivation includes a variety of things like seedcosts, fertilizer costs, manure costs, pesticide costs,interest, costs of irrigation, cost incurred in hiringmachinery, minor repairs, hired labour, animallabour and so on. The total costs is subtracted fromthe total value is used to arrive at the total incomefrom farming. Income from this is collected in thesurvey for two reference periods and so we haveinformation on incomes from cultivation fromJuly 2012-June 2013.

• Income from livestock—This is the income ahousehold earns from sale of various products likemilk, eggs and live animals. Total value from thisincome source is calculated as the total value ofmilk, egg, live animals, wool, fish, honey, hides,bones, manure and so on. The costs incurred willinclude cost of animal 'seeds', animal feeds,veterinary charges, interest, lease rent, labourcharges and other expenses. The total costs aresubtracted from total value to obtain net incomefrom animals. This data was collected for a periodof 30 days before the survey in visits one and two.We multiply each of this by 6 and add it together toget the total annual income from livestock for thefarm household.

• Income from wages and salary—This is the incomederived by various household members employedin labour outside their household—either in other'sfields or in nonfarm enterprises. The wages andsalary earned by each of the individuals in the tworeference periods was collected in the survey.Information was also collected on the principal andsubsidiary industry of the individual and currentstatus in both the industries. The sum of the wagesand salaries of all individuals in the household inthe two reference periods becomes the total wageand salary income earned by the household.

• Income from nonfarm business—This is the incomethat the household earns by engaging in nonfarmbusinesses. Information related to expenses, outputand net receipt of up to five nonfarm businesses

engaged by households was collected in the NSSsurvey. The data was collected for a period of30 days before the survey in the two visits. Wemultiply the total net receipt from up to fivebusinesses in each visit by 6 and add it together toarrive at total household income fromk nonfarmbusinesses.

All these incomes are added to obtain total annualhousehold income of a farm household. The estimates ofall India data are obtained by using appropriate weightspresented in the NSS survey. All the summary statisticsprovided henceforth are obtained using the weights andhence represent population statistics. The report is furtherstructured as follows. Section 2 analyses the total incomeof farmer households. Section 3 analyses the income offarm households from cultivation. Section 4 looks into theincome from livestock. Section 5 analyses the incomes fromnonfarm businesses. Section 6 analyses wage and salaryincome of the farm households. Section 7 provides somedescription of poverty, inequality and indebtednessprevalent in farm households. Section 8 providesconclusions and policy recommendations from our analysis.

2. Total Incomes of Farm Households

This section will look in to the total income of farmhouseholds in India. Firstly, we look at incomes at all Indialevel. Then, we will look into the income across householdshaving different principal income sources, land holdingsizes, state and caste.

2.1 All India Farm Household Incomes

Table 2.1 provides the summary statistics of total incomeand income components of farm households in India.

TABLE 2-1 ANNUAL INCOMES OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS

2002-03 Mean Mean

Income from Farming 11628 36960

Income from Livestock 1092 9943

Income from Nonfarm Business 9828 6138

Income from Wages and Salary 11628 24847

Total Income 25380 77888

The average total annual income of a farm householdis INR 77,888 which roughly turns out to be around INR6,491 per month. This figure was INR 25,380 per year orINR 2,115 per month in 2002-03 based on a similar surveyconducted by NSS (GoI, 2005). This roughly translates toa compound annual growth rate of 3.4% per annum forreal income of farm households1. The CAGR for farmingincome, livestock income, wage/salary income and nonfarmbusiness income are 3.7%, 14.3%, 1.4% and -0.1%respectively. We find that livestock incomes have grownat a very high rate during the period under consideration.

1We use CPIAL Index from July 2012 to June 2013 and July 2002 and June 2003 to deflate the incomes of 2012-13.


Nonfarm incomes and wages/salary of farm householdshave grown at a much slower rate than cultivation for farmhouseholds. A high growth in nonfarm incomes might helpfarmers move out of agriculture into non-agriculturalactivities. But, we find that this has not happened and thismight be the reason why even with impending agrariancrisis farmers are not leaving cultivation. In the farm surveyconducted in 2002-03, a high percentage of farmers hadindicated that they would shift out of crop cultivation ifprovided with an option. One of the reasons this might nothave happened is because the growth rate of cultivationand wages have been higher than growth in nonfarmbusiness incomes. The low wage growth is also surprisinggiven the positive effects MGNREGA is supposed to havehad on rural wages. In this regard, the negative growth rate

of wages in period prior to MGNREGA could have playeda role (Gulati, Jain and Satija, 2013). We should also keepin mind while interpreting these growth rates that that theyear 2002-03 was a drought year and 2012-13 was not.

In terms of components of total income, the averagefarming income of the households is highest from farmingwhich comes to INR 36,960. Income from wages and salaryis the second highest source of inome with the averageearning of farm households at INR 24,847. The averageincome from livestock and nonfarm business are lower andare INR, 9,943 and INR 6,138 respectively. Figure 2.1 andFigure 2.2 provide the composition of annual householdincome for the recent survey and the 2002-03 survey.

Figure 2-1 Composition of Annual Income of a Farm Household 2012-13

Figure 2-2 Composition of Annual Income of a Farm Household 2002-03

June, 2015 33

From Figure 2.1, we observer that average incomefrom farming is 47% of the total annual income. Averageincome from wages and salary are 32% of average annualincome. Average income from livestock is 13% of averageannual income and nonfarm income average is only 8% oftotal annual income. Compared to 2002-03, the wages andsalary income have shrunk and largest expansion hashappened in income from livestock. The nonfarm incomeshave also shrunk slightly and there is a slight expansion inthe farm income as a percentage of total annual income.

The income as discussed previously is the sum ofincomes derived in two reference periods (July-December,2012 and January to July 2013).

TABLE 2-2 INCOME OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS FROM

JULY 2012-DECEMBER 2012

Mean

Income from Farming 21489

Income from Livestock 4684

Income from Nonfarm Business 2883

Income from Wages and Salary 11236

Total Income 40293

TABLE 2-3 INCOME OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS FROM

JANUARY 2013-JULY 2013

Mean

Income from Farming 15457

Income from Livestock 5332

Income from Nonfarm Business 3326

Income From Wages and Salary 13565

Total income 37681

From Table 2.2 and Table 2.3, we observe that thehouseholds earn slightly more in the first reference periodas it coincides with the Kharif period for seasonal cropsand also period in which most rainfall in the country occurs.The average income from farming is around INR 6000 moreor 40% more in the period as compared to the secondreference period. But the average incomes from livestock,nonfarm business and wages/salary are higher in the secondreference period. The incomes from livestock, nonfarmbusiness and wages/salary are 12%, 13% and 17% lowerin the first reference period as compared to the secondreference period respectively. The total income though isstill 7% higher than the second reference period duringJuly to December 2012. The composion of total annualincome is also different in the two reference periods. Werefere to the first and second reference period as kharifand rabi in the report henceforth through they may notexactly correspond to kharif and rabi seasons respectivelyfor all agricultural household considered in the study. Figure2.3 and 2.4 provide the composition of household incomefor kharif and rabi period respectively.

Figure 2-3 Composition of Annual Household Income of farm Household in Kharif


From Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4, we observe that aaverage income from livestock and income from nonfarmbusiness as a percentage of average total income is almostsimilar in both kharif and rabi. The average farm incomeas a share of total income is higher in kharif compared torabi and average wage/salary income as a percentage ofaverage total income is lower in kharif compared to rabi.This is expected as farm households might engage more infarming when rainfall happens during months July toDecember and less in farming and more in labour duringthe period of January to June.

2.2 Farm Household Incomes across Different PrincipalIncome Sources

The incomes and the composition of household incomeswill differe based on their principal income sources. Thoughhouseholds are farm households, their principal incomesources could be cultivation, livestock, wage/salariedemployment, nonfarm enterprises, other agriculturalactivities, pension, remittances or other activities. Table2.4 provides the incomes and income cmposition of farmhouseholds having all the different principal incomesources.

TABLE 2-4 INCOME OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS ACROSS DIFFERENT PRINCIPAL INCOME SOURCES

Principal income proportion Inome Income Income Income TotalSource of Total from from from from Annual

farm farming Livestock nonfarm wages/ IncomeHouseholds Business Salary

Cultivation 63.5% 50874 (68) 9157(12) 3538(5) 11408(15) 74977

Wage/Salaried 22.0% 10595(12) 7906(9) 1540(2) 72089(78) 92132

Employment

Non-Agricultural 4.7% 14726(14) 6187(6) 72550(69) 11130(11) 104593

Enterprise

Livestock 3.7% 14218(19) 49465(65) 1632(2) 11324(15) 76639

Remittances 3.3% 8151(53) 4430(29) 410(3) 2418(16) 15409

Pension 1.1% 20869(42) 5284(11) 6396(13) 17150(35) 49700

Other Agricultural 1.1% 49572(51) 9673(10) 6574(7) 30739(32) 96558

Activity

Other 0.7% 12444(29) 6287(15) 5492(13) 18983(44) 43207

NOTE: Figures in brackets indicates the share of component income in total income.

Figure 2-4 Composition of Annual Household Income of farm Household in Rabi

32%

47%

June, 2015 35

From Table 2.4, we observe that majorityof the farmhouseholds (64%) have cultivation as their principalincome source. A large number (22%) have wage/salariesemployment as the principal income source. About 4.7%and 3.7% have nonfarm enterprise and livestock as theirprincipal income source. Remittances also form aprincipal income source for substantial proportion (3.3%)of farm households. The total income is highest forhouseholds having nonfarm enterprises as their principalincome source. These households earn about INR1,04,593 in a year. This is followed by households thathave other agricultural activity as their principal incomesource. They earn about 92% of the incomes earned byhouseholds with nonfarm enterprises as principal incomesource. Households with wage and salaried employmentas the principal income source also earn about 88% ofincomes earned by households with non agriculturalenterprises as the principal income source. Cultivationand livestock households earn substantially lesser andtheir incomes are 72% and 73% of annual income ofnonfarm household respectively. Pension, other andremittance households earn very less incomes and theirincomes come to 48%, 41% and 15% of nonfarmhouseholds respectively.

In terms of the components of income, the principalincome source contributes to the highest income shares ofa household. Agricultural households earn 68% of theirincomes through cultivation and wages and livestockincomes contribute to 15% and 12% of total incomes.Agricultural households with cultivation as principalincome source earn about INR 50,874 in a year. Otheragricultural activity households also earn similar amountsbut all the other households earn much lesser around16-41% of this income from cultivation. Livestockhouseholds earn 65% of their incomes from livestock. They

earn 19% and 15% from cultivation and wages. They earnabout INR 49,465 from livestock in a year. The otherhouseholds earn much lesser which accounts to roughly 9-20% of this amount. The nonfarm enterprises householdsearn 69% of their total income from nonfarm business. Theyearn 14% and 11% from cultivation and wages respectively.These households roughly earn INR 72,550 in a year fromnonfarm businesses. The other households earn much lesserwhich accounts to roughly 1-9% of this amount. The wage/salaried employment households earn about 78% of theirincomes from wages and 12% and 9% from cultivationand livestock. They roughly earn INR 72,089 in a yearfrom their principal income sources. The other householdsearn about 3-43% of this amount in a year. All the otherhouseholds earn majority of their incomes from cultivation(29-53%) and wages (16-44%). From these observationsit seems that all households are able to diversitysignificantly in cultivation, livestock and wages. Butnonfarm businesses are not something that is an incomesource for many. Nonfarm households earn a high amountfrom these businesses and other households do seem toearn only a low percentage of this in these businesses. Thisis unlike wage employment. Though the wage employmenthouseholds earn significant amount in wages, the otherhouseholds also earn a reasonable percentage of thisamount from it. One of the reasons for this disparity couldbe because of entry barriers posed by capital and otherrequirements in nonfarm businesses. This could also be areason for slow growth of nonfarm sector among farmhouseholds.

2.3 State-wise Farm Household Incomes

The incomes and composition will also be different acrossof the country. Table 2.5 provides the state-wise farmhouseholds incomes and their composition.

TABLE 2-5 INCOMES OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS ACROSS DIFFERENT STATES

Income IncomeIncome From From Total

Income From From Nonfarm Wages/ AnnualStates Farming Livestock Business Salary Income

1 2 3 4 5 6

A& N Islands 34922(26) 6693(5) 26475(20) 65898(49) 133988

Andhra Pradesh 24209(34) 13025(18) 4534(6) 29760(42) 71528

Arunachal Pradesh 77785(64) 8466(7) 10919(9) 24916(20) 122086

Assam 50521(63) 9553(12) 3078(4) 17176(21) 80328

Bihar 20627(47) 4831(11) 2829(6) 15885(36) 44172

Chandigarh 40403(16) 57627(22) 0(0) 162016(62) 260046

Chhattisgarh 40229(63) 934(1) 14(0) 22177(35) 63354

D & N haveli 7272(8) 929(1) 16145(18) 63551(72) 87897


Daman & Diu 2479(3) 4626(5) 13861(16) 66983(76) 87949

Delhi 14079(6) 38554(17) 1939(1) 178167(77) 232739

Goa 16893(19) 15097(17) 12243(13) 46865(51) 91098

Gujarat 35152(37) 24179(25) 4538(5) 32095(33) 95964

Haryana 94411(54) 32678(19) 5201(3) 41873(24) 174163

Himachal Pradesh 35001(33) 12905(12) 9784(9) 48278(46) 105968

Jammu & Kashmir 36635(24) 11129(7) 18081(12) 88220(57) 154065

Jharkhand 17385(29) 16916(29) 2935(5) 22066(37) 59302

Karnataka 59047(55) 8907(8) 7489(7) 32116(30) 107559

Kerala 42479(29) 8303(6) 31303(22) 63211(44) 145296

Lakshadweep 8734(4) 1386(1) 1521(1) 199921(94) 211562

Madhya Pradesh 48039(64) 9174(12) 1569(2) 15930(21) 74712

Maharashtra 46385(51) 9308(10) 10044(11) 25764(28) 91501

Manipur 35059(33) 18470(17) 6835(6) 45743(43) 106107

Meghalaya 77354(54) 9808(7) 10888(8) 45308(32) 143358

Mizoram 54729(50) 10499(10) 314(0) 43858(40) 109400

Nagaland 38545(34) 10398(9) 740(1) 64718(57) 114401

Odisha 16892(28) 15477(26) 6451(11) 20620(35) 59440

Puducharry 19132(27) 580(1) 3104(4) 48446(68) 71262

Punjab 130163(60) 21157(10) 8800(4) 57330(26) 217450

Rajasthan 37621(43) 11894(14) 8499(10) 30002(34) 88016

Sikkim 20350(24) 13536(16) 11986(14) 37361(45) 83233

Tamil Nadu 22989(27) 13623(16) 13646(16) 34772(41) 85030

Telengana 50813(66) 6181(8) 3074(4) 17392(22) 77460

Tripura 33270(51) 3684(6) 1976(3) 26187(40) 65117

Uttar Pradesh 34197(57) 7094(12) 4617(8) 13775(23) 59683

Uttaranchal 30351(54) 10394(18) 2947(5) 12974(23) 56666

West Bengal 11737(24) 2966(6) 8008(17) 25484(53) 48195

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

NOTE: Figures in brackets of other columns indicate the share of income component in total income.

Among the states, farm households in Chandigarh,Delhi and Punjab have the highest incomes while farmhouseholds in Bihar West Bengal and Uttaranchal havethe lowest total incomes. A farm household in Chandigarhearns INR 2,60,046 in a year or approximately INR 21,671per month while a farm household in Bihar earn INR 44,172in a year or approximately INR 3,681 a month. This is just17% of what a farm household in Chandigarh earns. Delhiand Punjab farm households earn 89% and 84% of

TABLE 2-5 INCOMES OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS ACROSS DIFFERENT STATES

STATE-CONTD.

Chandigarh farm households respectively while farmhouseholds in West Bengal and Uttaranchal earn 19% and22% of Chandigarh farm households respectively.

With respect to income from farming Punjab andHaryana earn the highest while Goa, Odisha, Delhi,West Bengal, Lakshadweep, D & N Haveli and Daman &Diu earn the lowest. Average earning from farming of afarm household in Punjab is INR 1,30,163 per year or

June, 2015 37

INR 10,847 per month. For West Bengal, this income isINR 11,737 per year or approximately INR 978 per month.Haryana farm households earn a farm income that is 73%of Punjab farm household's farm income while farmhousehold in Odisha and West Bengal earn farm incomesthat is 13% and 7% of Punjab farm household's farmincomes. In terms of shares, Telangana, Arunachal Pradesh,Madhya Pradesh, Assam Chattisgarh and Punjab have 60%or more of their total income coming from farming whileGoa, Chandigarh, D & N Haveli, Delhi, Lakshadweep andDaman & diu have less than 20% of the total incomes fromfarming.

In livestock, Chandigarh and Delhi have highincomes while Chattisgarh, D & N Haveli and Puducherryhave low incomes. Average income from livestock for afarm household in Chandigarh is INR 57,627 per year orINR 4,802 per month while that for a farm household inChattisgarh is INR 934 per year or INR 78 per month.Farm households in Delhi earn livestock income that is67% of livestock income in Chandigarh while a farmhousehold in Chattisgarh earns a livestock income that isonly 2% of livestock income of Chandigarh farmhousehold. In terms of shares, farm households inChandigarh, Gujarat, Odisha and Jharkhand earn more than20% of total Income through livestock while farmhouseholds in Chattisgarh, Puducherry, D & N Haveli andLakshadweep earn less than 1% of their incomes fromlivestock.

In nonfarm business, farm households in Kerala andA & N Islands earn the highest while those in Chandigarhand Chattisgarh earn the lowest. Average nonfarm incomein Kerala is INR 31303 per year or INR 2609 per monthwhile that is Chandigarh is INR 0 per year. In terms ofshares, farm households in Kerala and A & N Islands earnmore than 20% of their incomes from nonfarm businesseswhile farm households in Chandigarh, Chattisgarh andMizoram almost earn no incomes from nonfarm businesses.

In wages and salaries, lakshadweep, Delhi andChandigarh farm households earn the highest while Bihar,Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal earn the lowest. The averagewage/salary income in Lakshadweep is INR 1,99,921 peryear or INR 16,660 per month while that in Uttaranchal is

INR 12,974 per year or INR 1,081 per month. While wage/salary income of Delhi farm households is 89% ofChandigarh's, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal farmhouseholds earn wage/salary incomes that 8%, 7% and 6%of Chandigarh's. In terms of shares, Lakshadweep, Delhiand Daman & Diu farm households earn more than 3/4thsof their incomes from wages/salarly while households inHaryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Telangana, Assam,Madhya Pradesh and Arunchal Pradesh earn less than1/4th of their total incomes from wage/salary.

To observe the relation between income fromdifferent sources and total income, we found the correlationbetween income from different sources and total incomeof the households across different states. We find that thecorrelation between income from wage/salariedemployment and total income is the highest (0.82) followedby income from livestock (0.65), cultivation (0.37) andnonfarm business (0.08). This means that the incomes ofstates are driven by wage/salaried employment andlivestock than cultivation or nonfarm income. Higher thewage/slarlied employment in the state, higher is the farmhousehold income in the state. We also found correlationbetween shares of component incomes with total incomeof farm households. Again, we find that the correlation ofshare of income from wage/salaried employment has thehighest and positive correlation (0.37) with total income.All the other shares have negative correlation. The shareof cultivation has the highest negative correlation (-0.28)with total income followed by nonfarm business incomeshares (-0.22) and livestock income shares (-0.01). Thismeans that the higher the share in agriculture of farmhouseholds in a state, lower is the income of the state. Thestranger finding is a quite high negative correlation betweennonfarm income shares and total income. This would meanthat the shares of nonfarm usiness incomes are lower inhigh income states. As the share of wage/salariedemployment incomes increases in a state, there is anincrease of total income of farm households. Livestockincome shares do not seem to have much of influence ontotal income. We also calculated the state-wise compoundannual growth rates for 14 major states in India for differentcomponents of farm household income and total farmhousehold income over the period 2002-03 to 2012-03.Table 2.6 provides these growth rates.

TABLE 2-6 STATE-WISE GROWTH RATES OF DIFFERENT INCOME COMPONENTS AND TOTAL INCOME OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS

Income IncomeIncome From From Total

Income From From Nonfarm Wages/ AnnualStates Farming Livestock Business Salary Income

1 2 3 4 5 6

Andhra Pradesh 5.89% 14.35% -0.36% 3.78% 5.45%


Assam 0.70% 9.47% -7.77% -3.99% -0.34%

Bihar -0.78% -3.64% -6.29% 1.95% -0.75%

Chhattisgarh 6.34% ... -52.74% 1.74% 3.98%

Gujarat 1.40% 7.10% 2.28% 2.81% 3.12%

Haryana 8.77% ... -5.87% 2.29% 8.32%

Jammu & Kashmir -5.51% 1.04% 1.04% 4.86% 0.66%

Jharkhand -2.53% 20.13% -6.17% -0.95% 0.87%

Karnataka 5.76% 9.46% 5.28% 1.51% 4.48%

Kerala 3.64% 7.23% 5.05% 1.75% 3.20%

Madhya Pradesh 6.10% ... -5.28% 0.83% 6.91%

Maharashtra 3.32% 8.96% 3.97% 2.09% 3.46%

Odisha 6.48% 36.08% 5.89% 3.13% 7.57%

Punjab 5.64% 12.27% -2.70% 4.00% 5.13%

Rajasthan 13.84% 45.11% 4.65% 2.17% 8.10%

Tamil Nadu 2.84% 15.53% 9.64% 1.82% 4.47%

Uttar Pradesh 4.44% 16.32% -0.55% -0.63% 3.31%

West Bengal -5.01% 3.82% -2.16% 0.90% -1.25%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

From, Table 2.5, we find that growth rates of totalincome in the decade have been highest in Haryana (8.3%),Rajasthan (8.1%) and Odisha (7.6%) while it is lowest inthe states of Assam (-0.3%), Bihar (-0.8%) and West Bengal(-1.3%). Haryana's growth has largely come from incomesfrom cultivation (8.8%) while that of Rajasthan and Odishahas come through growth in incomes from livestock(45.1%) and 36.1% respectively). In the low growth states,Assam has suffered decelaration in non-farm businessincome (-7.8%) and wage incomes (-4%). Bihar's lowincome comes from decelaration in all sectors except wageincome. West Bengal has seen major decelaration inincomes from cultivation (-5%) and non-farm business(-2.2%) during this period.

In terms of component-wise Growth, the three highgrowth states based on total income are the highest growingstates in income from cultivation as well. In terms of lowgrowth states, the low growing states in total income areamong the lowest five states in term of growth rate inincome from cultivation as well. Jammu and Jharkhandhave also seen deceleration incomes from cultivation(-6% and -3% respectively). This shows that there exists ahigh correlation of farming incomes growth and totalincome growth of farm households. Incomes from livestockalso show a high correlation with growth rates of totalincome. Even in this case, the three high growting states interms of livestock incomes are the three high growing states

in terms of total income. On the low income states, Biharhas shown the lowest growth (-3.6%) in livestock incomes.Non-farm business income growths have been high inTamil Nadu (9.6%); Odisha (5.9%) and Karnataka (5.3%)and lowest in Bihar (-6.3%), Assam - (-7.8%) andChattisgarh (-52.7%) Wage income growth has been highestin Andhra (3.8%), Jammu (4.9%) and Punjab (4%) andlowest in UP (-0.6%), Jharkhand (-1 %) and Assam(-4 %). The correlation between different componentgrowth rates and total income growth rates were calculated.Highest correlation with total income growth rate was withcultivation growth rate (0.89) and livestock growth rate(0.77) The correlation of total income growth rate withwage income growth rate was 0.37 while that with non-farm business income was 0.1. Both incomes fromcultivation and livestock are exposed to problems fromweather and a high correlation with total incomes of farmhousehelds is not necessarily an encouraging one. If thefarm households could have opportunities in non-farmbusiness and non-agricultural wage labour during times ofdistress, these correlation could reduce further.

2.4 Farm Household Incomes Across LandholdingClasses

Table 2.7 provides the income and composition of incomeacross different landholding classes. The landholdingclassification is based in NSS classification on total landpossessed.

June, 2015 39

TABLE 2-7 INCOMES OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS ACROSS DIFFERENT LANDHOLDING CLASSES 2012-13

Size Class of Proportion Income Income Income Income TotalLand Prossessed of total from from from Annual Annual(Ha) Farm Farming Livestock Nonfarm Wages/ Income

Household Business Salary

<0.01 2.64%(0.005) 356(1) 14557(26) 5366(10 34825(63) 54147

0.01-0.40 31.86%(0.19) 8232(16) 7685(15) 5505(11) 28629(57) 50193

0.41-1.00 34.92%(0.66) 25726(40) 8467(13) 5546(9) 24135(38) 63791

1.01.-2.00 17.16%(1.38) 50501(56) 11090(12) 7113(8) 20735(23) 90036

2.01-4.00 9.31%(2.57) 88297(68) 15155(12) 6643(5) 19882(15) 132335

4.01-10.00 3.72%(5.66) 182916(77) 19112(8) 10338(4) 24377(10) 234938

10.00+ 0.39% (15.25%) 428224(86) 33157(7) 21244(4) 15730(3) 452299

All 100% (1.036) 36960(47) 10046(13) 6212(8) 24847(32) 78065

NOTE: Figures in brackets in first column indicates the average landholding for particular landholding class: Figures in brackets of other columns

indicate the share of income component in total income.

From table 2.7, we observe that 69.42% of farmhouseholds in India own less than I ha land and 86.58% offarm households own less than 2 ha land. The averagelandholding of farmers with less than 1 ha land is 0.42 ha.The small farmers with 1-2 ha land are 15.87% and theiraverage landholding is 1.38 ha. The semi-medium(possessing 2-4 ha land), medium (possessing 4-10 ha land)and large farmers (possessing land greater than 10 ha)comprise of 9.31%, 3.72% and 0.39% of total with averagelandholding of 2.57ha, 5.66ha and 15.25 ha. In 2002-03,the percentage of various landholding classes were 3.66%,28.78%, 32.84%, 18.09%, 10.84%, 4.89% and 0.91%respectively. So, the percentage of farmers possessing lessthan 1 ha has increased by 4.15% and those possessingland less than 2 ha has increased by 3.23%. The averageland possessed was also 1.23 ha in the 2002-03 survey. Sothe average land possessed also has decreased by 15%.Here again, there is a caveat in interpreting the results.During the 2002-03 survey, only those households whichowned some land were surveyed which was not the case in2012-13. Though this might mean that the extent ofmarginalisation in terms of households possessing land lessthan 2 ha and in terms of average land size is lesser thanwhat the figures show, there is no doubt of a trend towardsincreased marginalisation of land possession among farmhouseholds.

For the lowest two landholding classes, wages fromthe most important source of income contributing to 63%and 57% of household income. Importance of cropcultivation incomes increase along with landholding sizeswith it contributing to just 1 % of the lowest landholdingclass and 86% of household income to the largestlandholding class. Livestock is more crucial for lowerlandholding classes with it contributing 26% of household

income to lowest landholdings class and 7% to highestlandholding class. Nonfarm business incomes contributeto 11% and 10% to the lower landholding classes while itcontributes to around 4% to largest landholding class.Wages/salary contributes to only 3% of household incomeof the largest landholding class. This shows that apart fromcrop cultivation incomes, other incomes are more crucialto households lesser lesser land and thus policies onimproving these incomes could provide an impetus forequitable growth.

We also find that at very low levels of less than 0.4ha, farm households possessing land less than 0.01 ha onaverage earn more than those possessing land greater than0.01 ha but less than 0.4 ha. They do this by earning morein livestock and wages than the farm households in secondcategory. The 0.01 to 0.4 ha land class earn more than thehouseholds with less than 0.01 ha in crop cultivation butbecause of time they put into crop cultivation are notearning as much in wages or livestock. On the nonfarmbusinesses, households in both the categories earn prettymuch the same amount. For households having land greaterthan 0.4 ha, the average annual household income increasewith land sizes. Income from crop cultivation and livestockalso increase with land sizes with the households possessingland greater than 0.4 ha and less than 1 ha on averageearning INR 25,726 in crop cultivation and INR 8,467 inlivestock while a household possessing more than 10 haearns INR 4,28,224 in crop cultivation and INR 33,157 inlivestock. Thought both the incomes increase with landsizes, we find that the crop cultivation incomes are highlybiased to towards large landholders as compared tolivestock income. A rough indication on this is that the ratioof average crop cultivation income between thosehouseholds possessing more than 2 ha to those households


possessing less than 1 ha is 7.43, while the same forlivestock income is 2.01. The same ratio for nonfarmincomes is 1.47 and the wage income, which is baisedtowards households possessing lesser land is 0.79. The ratiofor total income is 2.98 which would mean that householdspossessing land sizes more than 2 ha earn on average3 times the income of housholds prossessing less than 1ha. The ratio of avearage crop cultivation income, livestockincome, nonfarm income, wage income and total annualincome between households land greater than 2 ha to those

possessing land less than 1 ha in 2002-03 was 6.81, 0.46,1.41, 0.69 and 2.66 respectively. So we observe thatinequalities on account of land holdings have increasedfor all income sources and total incomes as well.

2.5 Farm Household Incomes Across Various Castes

Table 2.8 provides the proportion of different castehouseholds in agriculture and their income and incomecompositions.

TABLE 2-8 INCOMES OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS ACROSS DIFFERENT CASTES

Proportion Income Income Income Income Totalof total from from from Annual Annual

Farm Farming Livestock Nonfarm Wages/ IncomeHousehold Business Salary

ST 13.44% 30734(43) 10598(15) 2084(3) 27431(39) 70846

SC 16.26% 17670(32) 6476(12) 3596(6) 27745(50) 55486

OBC 45.43% 37333(48) 10642(14) 6897(9) 22576(29) 77448

Others 24.87% 52226(54) 1088(11) 8894(9) 25517(26) 97519

NOTE: Figures in brackets of other columns indicate the share of income component in total income.

Frorm Table 2.5, we observe that 13.44% of farmhouseholds belong to Scheduled Tribes, while 16.26%,45.43% and 24.87% belong to Scheduled Caste, OtherBackward Castes and Others belonging to other castes andreligion. The income is highest among others, followed byOBC, ST and SC. The others earn INR 97,519 per annumof approximately INR 8,127 per month. Farm householdsbelonging to OBC, ST and SC earn total incomes that are79%, 73% and 57% of total income of Others. Others earnhighest in cultivation, livestock and nonfarm businesses,while SCs, earn highest in wages/salary, SCs earn the leastin farming followed by STs, OBCs and Others earning thehighest in cultivation. The ordering is same for incomes fromlivestock. In nonfarm business, STs earn the least followedby SCs, OBCs and Others earning the highest. In wageincomes, OBCs earn the least followed by others, STs andSCs earning the most. Wage income forms a high share oftotal income for SC and ST farm households while cultivationincome forms the high share for OBCs and Others.

3 Incomes from Cultivation

This section analyses the incomes from cultivation of thefarm households. First, we analyse the cultivation incomesfor households across all India. Then we look at thedifferences in cultivation economics for households acrossdifferent states, crops and land classes. We also took intoissues related to tenancy and diversification and itsimplications on crop cultivation incomes.

3.1 Income from Cultivation for Farm HouseholdsAcroos All India

The economics of cultivation across the two seasons andhouseholds involved in cultivation in the two seasons arenot same. So, we present the analysis for two differentseasons separately. Table 3.1 provides the economics ofcultivation across two seasons for alll farming householdsin India.

TABLE 3.1. ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION FOR FARM HOUSEHOLDS ACROSS INDIA

Kharif Rabi

1 2 3

Households Undertaking Cultivation 85.8% 70.8%Households having access to Irirgation 59.1% 68.6%

Average Land Owned by Cultivating Households (ha) 1.011 0.956Average Land Under Cultivation (ha) 0.944 0.785Average Irrigated Land Under Cultivation (ha) 0.469 0.622

June, 2015 41

Average Unirrigated Land Under Cultivation (ha) 0.468 0.161

Total Value from Farming (INR) (TV) 40821 36745

Seed Cost 1859(11.9) 1560(10.5)

Fertilizer Cost 3381(21.6) 3231(21.6)

Manure Cost 406(2.6) 327(2.2)

Plant Protection Chemicals Cost 1245(8) 1037(6.9)

Diesel Cost 675(4.3) 850(5.7)

Electricity Cost 242(1.5) 345(2.3)

Human Labour Cost 3559(22.7) 2847(19.1)

Animal Labour Cost 290(1.9) 143(1)

Irrigation Cost 350(2.2) 667(4.5)

Minor Repair Cost 311(2) 299(2)

Interest Cost 229(1.5) 214(1.4)

Machine Hiring Cost 1498(9.6) 1794(12)

Lease Rent 1080(6.9) 1144(7.7)

Other Expense 530(3.4) 470(3.1)

Total Cost (TC) 15656(100) 14928(100)

Returns (TV-TC) 25165 21817

GVO/Costs (TV/TC) 2.61 2.46

TV/TC (2002-03) 2.27 2.37

Change in TV/TC 15% 7%

NOTE: Figures in brackets indicate the percentage of cost component to total cost

1 2 3

From Table 3.1, we observe that 85.5% and 70.8%of total households were involved in cultivation duringKharif and Rabi respectively. As we would expect, morehouseholds were involved in cultivation in Kharif periodthan Rabi. Out of these households that participated incultivation, 59.1% and 68.1% households had access toirrigation in Kharif and Rabi respectively. Irrigation isrequired more during the rabi season, so we observe thatlarger percentage of households cultivating in Rabi haveaccess to irrigation. The average land under cultivation inthe two periods are 0.944 ha and 0.785 ha. The averageland owned by households undertaking cultivation in Kharifand Rabi is 1.011 ha and 0.956 ha. This means 93% ofland owned by households cultivating in Kharif and 82%of land owned by households cultivating in Rabi is putunder cultivation. Also, the average irrigated andunirrigated land is almost same in Kharif (0.469 and 0.468ha respectively) while average irrigated land is much higherin Rabi compared to average unirrigated land (0.622 and

0.161 ha respectively). This again underlines theimportance of irrigation in Rabi compared to Kharif forfarm households.

The total value realised by farm households in Kharifand Rabi are INR 40,821 and INR 36,745 respectively.The total value realised in Kharif incomes is 11% higherthan that realised in Rabi. In terms of cost components inagriculture, human labour (22.7%) forms the highest inKharif followed by fertilizer costs (21.6%) while in Rabi,fertilizer costs (21.6%) is highest followed by human labourcosts (19.1%). Seed cost forms the next highest component(11.9%) in Kharif while machine hiring costs (12%) formthe third highest cost component in Rabi. Machine hiringcosts (9.6%) is the fourth highest component in Kharif andseed cost (10.5%) is the fourth highest in Rabi. Plantprotection chemical costs (8% and 6.9%), lease rent cost(6.9% and 7.7%) and diesel costs (4.3% and 5.7%) areother significant costs in both Kharif and Rabi. Irrigationcosts (4.5%) are significant in Rabi but not so significant

TABLE 3.1. ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION FOR FARM HOUSEHOLDS ACROSS INDIA—CONTD.


(2.2%) in Kharif. The low animal labour costs (1.9% and1%) and higher machine hiring costs confirm an increasingmechanisation in agriculture and its impact on differentland classes might be important to understand. We alsofind that significant costs are incurred in diesel, machinehiring and irrigation in Rabi indicating a high dependenceof electricity subsidy on Rabi returns for farm householdsthan Kharif returns. We also observe that total value ofRabi is 90% of total value of total value of Kharif, but theRabi returns is lesser at 86% of Kharif net returns. This isbecause some of the cost components have increaseddisproportionately in Rabi as compared to total value. Ifwe look closer we find that there were five costscomponents that are higher in Rabi as compared to totalvalue. Irrigation costs (191%), electricity costs (143%),diesel costs (126%), machine hiring costs (120%) and leaserent (106%) are higher in Rabi than Kharif by percentagesindicated in brackets. Similarly, animal labour and humanlabour costs in Rabi are only 49% and 80% of the same in

Kharif. Both the findings seem to indicate a highermechanisation in Rabi than in Kharif.

The returns in both the periods are INR 25,165 andINR 21,817 in Kharif and Rabi respectively. The total valueas a ratio of total costs is 2.61 and 2.46 in Kharif and Rabi.This ratio for a farm household in 2002-03 for totalfarming was 2.27 and 2.37 respectively. The average farmprofitability increased by 15% and 7% for crop cultivationas a whole in 2012-13 as compared to 2002-03. We willexplore the heterogeneities in this change in the subsequentsubsections.

3.2 Income from Cultivation for Farm Households inDifferent States

Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 provide the cultivation economicsacross different states for Kharif and Rabi seasonrespectively. The tables provide the data for only 18 majorstates in the country, but data on other states for the twoseasons.

June, 2015 43

TA

BL

E 3

.2. E

CO

NO

MIC

S O

F C

ULT

IVA

TIO

N F

OR F

AR

M H

OU

SEH

OL

DS

IN D

IFFE

RE

NT S

TAT

ES

(KH

AR

IF)

Stat

eA

PA

SSA

MB

IHA

RC

HH

GU

JH

AR

J&K

JHK

AR

KE

RM

PM

AH

OD

PUN

RA

JT

NU

PW

B

Prop

ortio

ncu

ltiva

ted

(%)

78.7

93.4

87.9

97.6

82.2

70.8

94.4

98.1

94.1

96.8

92.1

91.5

96.3

65.9

89.7

48.4

85.1

89.3

Ave

rage

land

culti

vate

d1.

644

0.77

90.

563

1.16

01.

312

1.63

30.

418

0.51

51.

385

0.42

51.

305

1.36

30.

683

2.17

21.

285

0.66

60.

556

0.38

0

Tota

l Val

ue54

494

3695

918

321

4708

747

763

1098

1336

282

1600

467

489

4143

438

432

6479

422

276

1912

6329

673

4102

929

196

1711

1

Seed

Cos

t38

7838

758

811

1039

9358

9929

081

021

8257

523

7445

5333

339

2924

4628

3192

967

9

Fert

ilize

r C

ost

7727

(19)

913(

18)

1626

(20)

2713

(25)

3532

(19)

5656

(14)

1095

(24)

1259

(28)

6312

(26)

2533

(17)

2641

(21)

7429

(29)

2368

(27)

1005

2(13

)12

98(1

3)45

94(2

3)23

91(2

5)20

24(1

8)

Man

ure

Cos

t75

8(2)

196(

4)32

5(4)

658(

6)27

1(1)

525(

1)58

(1)

143(

3)94

6(4)

1556

(10)

362(

3)64

5(3)

227(

3)54

0(1)

304(

3)11

47(6

)22

0(2)

202(

2)

Plan

t Pro

tect

ion

Che

mic

al C

ost

4253

(10)

322(

6)22

8(3)

885(

8)13

42(7

)50

23(1

2)40

2(9)

90(2

)16

43(7

)57

5(4)

1457

(11)

2296

(9)

583(

7)88

42(1

2)31

2(3)

1361

(7)

642(

6)50

8(5)

Die

sel C

ost

517(

1)14

8(3)

539(

7)93

(1)

930(

5)27

73(7

)13

3(3)

117(

3)36

4(1)

28(0

)65

3(5)

300(

1)88

(1)

1008

0(13

)29

4(3)

808(

4)11

66(1

1)31

4(3)

Ele

ctri

city

Cos

t79

(0)

2(0)

11(0

)37

(0)

493(

3)14

27(3

)40

(1)

2(0)

166(

1)12

5(1)

333(

3)94

9(4)

20(0

)54

(0)

407(

4)1(

0)17

8(2)

81(1

)

Hum

an L

abou

rC

ost

1023

5(25

)15

43(3

1)19

31(2

4)23

57(2

1)36

69(2

0)75

80(1

8)10

07(2

2)93

6(21

)67

29(2

8)71

05(4

7)19

18(1

5)49

81(1

9)27

63(3

1)12

775(

17)

1629

(16)

5190

(26)

1846

(17)

4554

(41)

Ani

mal

Lab

our

Cos

t99

9(2)

147(

3)50

(1)

44(0

)29

3(2)

134(

0)38

9(9)

175(

4)10

46(4

)53

(0)

49(0

)10

76(4

)18

8(2)

9(0)

50(0

)29

1(1)

64(1

)18

8(2)

Irri

gatio

n C

ost

203(

0)42

(1)

897(

11)

84(1

)35

8(2)

475(

1)17

(0)

79(2

)15

8(1)

51(0

)80

(1)

474(

2)80

(1)

491(

1)13

5(1)

217(

1)59

4(6)

580(

5)

Rep

air

273(

1)61

(1)

92(1

)21

7(2)

336(

2)14

99(4

)25

9(6)

69(2

)52

0(2)

107(

1)30

8(2)

466(

2)11

3(1)

2011

(3)

314(

3)47

8(2)

345(

3)82

(1)

Inte

rest

1553

(4)

11(0

)24

(0)

133(

1)91

(1)

400(

1)6(

0)8(

0)69

8(3)

362(

2)58

(0)

101(

0)54

(1)

2672

(3)

111(

1)23

3(1)

95(1

)49

(0)

Hir

ing

Cos

t29

35(7

)71

5(14

)84

2(11

)14

83(1

3)18

89(1

0)44

02(1

1)33

8(7)

498(

11)

1779

(7)

286(

2)18

71(1

5)16

70(7

)86

3(10

)48

51(6

)23

90(2

3)22

87(1

1)10

08(9

)99

9(9)

Lea

se R

ent

6995

(17)

59(1

)57

0(7)

635(

6)43

6(2)

4962

(12)

43(1

)56

(1)

953(

4)11

70(8

)25

7(2)

78(0

)87

7(10

)19

270(

25)

187(

2)20

1(1)

717(

7)49

7(5)

Oth

er E

xpen

se94

3(2)

491(

10)

240(

3)56

4(5)

565(

5)77

2(2)

458(

10)

256(

6)94

6(4)

443(

3)38

3(3)

589(

2)25

9(3)

1092

(1)

404(

4)60

8(3)

416(

4)28

4(3)

Tota

l Cos

t41

347

5036

7964

1101

318

199

4152

745

3444

9824

443

1497

012

745

2560

788

1676

666

1028

120

247

1061

211

025

Ret

urns

1314

831

023

1035

736

074

2956

468

286

3174

811

506

4304

726

464

2568

739

188

1346

011

4597

1939

220

782

1858

560

86

GV

O/C

osts

1.32

7.16

2.30

4.28

2.62

2.64

8.00

3.56

2.76

2.77

3.02

2.53

2.53

2.49

2.89

2.03

2.75

1.55


TA

BL

E 3

-3 E

CO

NO

MIC

S O

F C

UL

TIV

AT

ION

FO

R F

AR

M H

OU

SEH

OL

DS

IN D

IFFE

RE

NT S

TAT

E (

RA

BI)

Stat

eA

PA

SSA

MB

IHA

RC

HH

GU

JH

AR

J&K

JHK

AR

KE

RM

PM

AH

OD

PUN

RA

JT

NU

PW

B

Prop

ortio

nC

ultiv

ated

(%)

54.8

8%89

.40%

88.8

8%28

.83%

48.7

7%70

.33%

82.7

5%77

.40%

43.3

4%96

.69%

83.1

0%44

.31%

49.0

8%66

.30%

64.9

1%59

.24%

89.5

9%78

.59%

Ave

rage

Lan

dC

ultiv

ated

1.19

20.

607

0.58

20.

780

1.01

61.

579

0.38

20.

211

0.92

09.

380

1.33

00.

994

0.42

22.

133

1.26

10.

784

0.66

80.

339

Tota

l Val

ue86

391

2894

722

763

2596

737

586

1000

165

1082

010

868

6315

430

146

4634

739

828

1462

614

7337

4660

545

047

3241

922

216

Seed

Cos

t33

96(6

)47

1(10

)12

11(1

2)61

1(8)

2071

(14)

3585

(10)

456(

16)

625(

21)

2262

(11)

710(

6)19

92(1

2)25

58(1

6)44

9(7)

3744

(6)

1805

12)

2960

(13)

1299

(11)

1587

(11)

Fert

izer

Cos

t96

99(1

6)10

42(2

1)23

76(2

4)20

22(2

7)29

18(1

9)60

05(1

7)71

9(26

)59

4(20

)51

94(2

6)18

11(1

4)42

53(2

5)46

32(2

9)13

35(2

0)10

419(

16)

2263

(17)

4189

(18)

3010

(25)

3093

(22)

Mna

ure

Cos

t10

21(2

)12

4(3)

265(

3)20

3(3)

393(

3)36

7(1)

39(1

)43

(1)

657(

3)11

12(9

)43

3(3)

342(

2)16

0(2)

242(

0)59

4(4)

1162

(5)

125(

1)20

3(1)

Plan

t Pro

tect

ion

Che

mic

als

Cos

t76

10(1

3)50

5(10

)32

8(3)

1072

(14)

1194

(8)

2996

(9)

106(

4)23

1(8)

1885

(9)

328(

3)94

8(6)

1101

(7)

896(

14)

6993

(11)

355(

2)14

77(6

)51

4(4)

738(

5)

Die

sel C

ost

620(

1)21

0(4)

492(

5)57

(1)

997(

7)36

39(1

0)78

(3)

190(

6)41

2(2)

19(0

)12

04(7

)21

8(1)

168(

3)71

23(1

1)15

24(1

0)45

2(2)

1190

(10)

305(

2)

Ele

ctri

city

Cos

tH

umm

n L

abou

rC

ost

62(0

)20

(0)

13(0

)75

(1)

895(

6)12

10(3

)40

(1)

12(0

)19

6(1)

80(1

)14

33(8

)12

40(8

)22

(0)

8(0)

1009

(7)

3(0)

140(

1)57

(0)

Hum

an L

abou

rC

ost

1472

2(24

)13

09(2

7)17

14(1

7)17

56(2

3)31

15(2

0)45

37(1

3)49

1(18

)53

7(18

)51

91(2

6)59

99(4

7)19

98(1

2)29

78(1

9)16

67(2

5)59

44(9

)21

68(1

4)66

97(2

9)15

26(1

3)43

19(3

0)

Ani

mal

Lab

our

Cos

t74

8(1)

179(

4)24

(0)

32(0

)94

(1)

65(0

)87

(3)

49(2

)62

1(3)

122(

1)15

(0)

656(

4)10

5(2)

18(0

)4(

0)31

0(1)

26(1

)23

2(2)

Irri

gatio

nC

ost

743(

1)12

(0)

1099

(1)

85(1

)11

27(7

)43

9(1)

3(0)

87(3

)40

0(2)

23(0

)52

9(3)

411(

3)19

1(3)

366(

1)72

8(5)

374(

2)91

5(8)

421(

10)

Rep

air

259(

0)59

(1)

118(

1)13

5(2)

248(

2)10

48(2

)14

3(5)

68(2

)45

0(2)

94(1

)44

4(3)

278(

2)63

(1)

2143

(3)

541(

4)58

8(3)

302(

3)10

2(1)

Inte

rest

2050

(3)

0(0)

18(0

)10

6(1)

20(0

)33

4(1)

1(0)

12(0

)42

1(2)

702(

5)23

6(1)

125(

1)87

(1)

2581

(4)

133(

1)40

0(2)

79(1

)62

(0)

Hir

ing

Cos

t42

95(7

)47

6(10

)13

90(1

4)10

23(1

4)17

60(1

1)57

86(1

7)41

2(15

)29

7(10

)17

37(9

)32

6(3)

2791

(16)

1051

(7)

569(

9)64

36(1

0)29

90(1

9)29

14(1

3)16

81(1

4)10

74(8

)

Lea

se R

ent

1342

9(22

)5(

0)54

4(6)

33(0

)5(

0)39

46(1

1)26

(1)

58(2

)28

((0)

1106

(9)

307(

2)47

(0)

710(

11)

1811

1(28

)69

(0)

698(

3)68

0(6)

759(

5)

Oth

er E

xpen

se18

93(3

)43

7(9)

216(

2)35

8(5)

487(

3)76

5(2)

181(

7)19

6(7)

652(

3)37

2(3)

385(

2)34

5(2)

161(

2)93

8(1)

801(

5)85

5(4)

403(

3)25

5(2)

Tota

l Cos

t60

524

4849

9805

7568

1532

134

722

2781

3000

2010

712

803

1696

715

981

6583

6506

615

384

2307

811

889

1420

7

Ret

urn

2584

424

099

1295

818

399

2226

565

4380

3978

6743

047

1734

229

380

2384

780

4382

271

3122

121

969

2053

080

09

GV

O/C

ost

143

5.97

2.32

3.43

2.45

2.88

3.89

3.62

3.14

2.35

2.73

2.49

2.22

2.26

3.03

1.95

2.73

1.56

June, 2015 45

From Table 3.2 and Table 3.3, we find that the totalvalue per unit cost in Kharif is highest in the state of Jammu& Kashmir, (8.00), Assam (7.16) and Chhattisgarh (4.28)and lowest in the state of Tamil Nadu (2.03), West Bengal(1.55) and Andhra Pradesh (1.32). The same ratio in Rabiis highest for the state of Assam (5.97), Jammu & Kashmir(3.89), Jharkhand (3.62) and Chhattisgarh (3.43) and lowedfor Tamil Nadu (1.95), West Bengal (1.56) and AndhraPradesh (1.43). We find that almost the same states figurein both the seasons. Actually, we find the correlationbetween Kharif GVO/cost ratio and Rabi ratio to be0.93.Given that the crop profiles in two seasons might notbe same for many states, this seems to indicate that GVO/Cost ration might depend more on state dependent factorsthat crop dependent factors.

To analyse the impact of various cost componentshares on GVO/cost ratio, we. found correlations betweenthe GVO/cost ratio and different cost component sharesfor Kharif and Rabi. For seed cost, we found the correlationto be -0.231 in Kharif and 0.260 in Rabi. This meant thatprofitability reduced with increase in seed cost shares inKharif whereas profitability increased with seed cost sharesin Rabi. For fertilizer cost shares, the correlations are 0.129and 0.253 for Kharif and Rabi respectively. This meansthat GVO/cost responds positively to increased fertilizercost shares in both season and the response is more positivein Rabi season compared to Kharif. The correlation formanure cost shares and GVO/cost ratio is -0.038 -0.046for Kharif and Rabi respectively and the correlation forthat for pesticide cost share is 0.009 and 0.055 for Kharifand Rabi respectively. This means that there is negligibleeffect of these cost on crop profitability. The correlationfor diesel cost share with GVO/cost ration is -0.117 and0.086 for Kharif and Rabi respectively. This means thatthe increase in diesel cost has a negative influenace inKharif while a positive influence on profitability in Rabi.

Human labour cost share has a negative insignificantcorrelation with GVO/cost ratio in Kharif (-0.053) andRabi (-0.074). Animal labour has a correlation of0.605 and 0.431 with GVO/cost ratio and Kharif and Rabirespectively. This means that higher share of animal labourcost in total cost increased profitability in farming and morein Kharif compared to Rabi. Irrigation cost shares had ahigh negative correlation with GVO/cost ratio in Kharif(-0.258) and Rabi (-0.373) respectively. This meant that farmhouseholds that had to spend more share of total costson irrigation lost out on profitability in both the seasons,but relatively higher in Rabi. Minor repair cost shares hada high positive correlation with GVO/cost ratio in Kharif(0.478) and Rabi (0.211) respectively. The spending on repaircould be considered a kind of a private investment and it isgood to find having postive association with farm profitabilityin both seasons. Interest cost shares (correlation with GVO/cost in Kharif and Rabi:-0.393 and -0.384) and lease rentcost shares (correlation with GVO/cost in Kharif and Rabi:-0.368 and -0.464) have high negative correlation with GVO/cost in both seasons. Machine hiring costs have a positivecorrelation of 0.112 and 0.223 with GVO/cost ratio in boththe seasons respectively.

3.3 Income from Cultivation for Farm Households forDifferent Crops:

The income from cultivation for different crops in bothseason were calculated for the study. We found out thatmore than 138 different crops were cultivated by formersin Kharif and more than 140 crops were cultivated by Indianfarm households in Rabi. We have economics of cultivationfor all these crops and could be provided on request. In thecurrent report we present the economics of cultivation for10 crops in Kharif and Rabi. We have only selected those10 crops which were cultivated by atleast 2% of farmhouseholds in the country. Table 3.4 provides the economicsof cultivation for the crops in Kharif.

TABLE 3-4 ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION FOR DIFFERENT CROPS (KHARIF)

Crop Paddy Maize Bajra Cotton Soyabean Jowar Sugarcane Urad Dal Tur Dal Groundnut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Proportion offarmers cultivatingthe crop 49.5% 10.3% 7.3% 7.0% 5.5% 4.9% 4.5% 3.9% 3.6% 2.59%

Land cultivated bythe farmers 0.778 0.885 1.157 2.088 1.865 1.756 1.056 1.093 1.889 1.727

Land undercrop 0.629 0.401 0.648 1.189 1.283 0.661 0.598 0.389 0.540 0.836

Irrigated Landunder Crop 0.422 0.143 0.211 0.544 0.289 0.178 0.596 0.157 0.086 0.275

Unirrigated LandUnder Crop 0.207 0.256 0.437 0.6.45 0.993 0.481 0.003 0.232 0.454 0.561

Proportion ofhouseholds having


irrigation 68.0% 37.8% 36.2% 44.8% 22.7% 31.8% 99.5% 36.6% 23.0% 40.3%

Yield in IrrgiatedLand (Kg/ha) 3811 2121 1799 1402 1169 3870 56106 563 860 977

Yield in UnirrigatedLand (Kg/ha) 3819 2747 3205 1685 1310 9839 56316 532 819 1390

Total Value 26554 10535 9500 60489 45385 11501 91675 6453 12102 28493

Seed Cost 712(6) 645(13) 520(11) 5194(19) 3455(20) 723(11) 3151(11) 265(9) 426(7) 4038(29)

Fertilizer Cost 2324(21) 1269(26) 899(19) 6063(22) 3647(21) 1713(26) 5762(28) 597(20) 1507(25) 2508(18)

Mannure Cost 253(2) 176(4) 120(3) 529(2) 336(2) 160(2) 443(2) 117(4) 104(2) 279(2)

Plant ProtectionChemicals Cost 789(7) 334(7) 179(4) 3156(11) 2020(12) 529(8) 883(4) 292(10) 811(13) 943(7)

Diesel Cost 606(6) 122(2) 150(3) 736(3) 722(4) 254(4) 1283(6) 144(5) 71(1) 253(2)

Electricity Cost 89(1) 122(2) 160(3) 407(1) 276(2) 162(2) 1003(5) 23(1) 52(1) 239(2)

Human LabourCost 2819(26) 869(18) 727(15) 5209(19) 2901(17) 1296(20) 4088(20) 563(18) 1484(24) 2708(20)

Animal Labour Cost 141(1) 149(3) 70(1) 625(2) 295(2) 278(4) 468(2) 39(1) 243(4) 467(3)

Irrigation Cost 343(3) 101(2) 139(3) 246(1) 91(1) 791 823(4) 73(2) 58(1) 52(0)

Repair 201(2) 115(2) 183(4) 347(1) 384(2) 124(2) 703(3) 158(5) 66(1) 222(2)

Interest 163(1) 52(1) 38(1) 378(1) 135(1) 77(1) 163(1) 38(1) 94(2) 458(3)

Hiring Cost 1108(10) 647(13) 1053(22) 2000(7) 2275(13) 619(10) 1057(5) 532(17) 463(8) 989(7)

Lease Rent 1073(10) 159(3) 302(6) 1959(7) 155(1) 249(4) 569(3) 101(3) 477(8) 282(2)

Other Expense 388(4) 192(4) 179(4) 608(2) 454(3) 229(4) 536(3) 108(4) 207(3) 286(2)

Total Cost 11009 4952 4719 27457 17146 6492 20931 3049 6062 13725

Returns 11095 5074 4987 26781 17032 6850 20455 3147 6604 14767

GVO/Cost 2.41 2.13 2.01 2.20 2.65 1.77 4.38 2.12 2.00 2.08

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

From the table, we observe that almost 50% thehouseholds cultivate paddy. Maize is cultivated by around10% of the households, bajra and cotton by around 7%households, soyabean, jowar and sugarcane by around 5%urad and tur dal around 4% households and groundnut byroughly 3% of households. Farm households cultivatingpaddy on average have 0.78 ha land under cultivation inKharif. The total land cultivated by farm householdscultivating maize (0.89 ha), bajra (1.16 ha), sugarcane (1.06ha) and urad dal (1.09 ha) all hover around 1 ha. The totaland cultivated by farm household cultivating cotton (2.09ha), soyabean (1.87 ha), Jowar (1.76 ha), tur dal (1.89 ha)and groundnut (1.73ha) are much higher and more in thevicinity of 2 ha. As a percentage of land cultivated under acrop to total land under cultivation, it is above 50% forpaddy (81%), soyabean (69%), sugarcane (57%) , cotton(57%) and bajra (56%) suggesting these might be usedmore as major crops for farmers doing intercropping. Thesenumber are less than 50% for groundnut (48%), maize(45%), jowar (38%), urad dal (36%) and tur dal (29%)suggesting these might be used as more as minor crops by

farmers doing intercropping. Also, the percentage of landunder irrigation is high for surgarcane (100%), paddy (67%)and cotton (46%) while it is low for jowar (27%), soybean(23%) and groundnut (16%). The irrigated land yield as apercentage of unirrigated land yield is very high for jowar(254%), bajra (178%) and groundnut (142%) and not sohigh for maize (130%), cotton (120%) and soybean (112%).The irrigated yield is almost the same or lower thanunirrigated land yield for paddy (100%), urad dal (95%)and tur dal (94%).

In terms of profitability, sugarcane has the highestGVO/cost ratio of 4.38 while jowar has the lowest GVO/cost ratio of 1.77. On observing the relation between costcomponent share and GVO/cost ratio, we find thatelectricity cost has a high correlation (0.77) with GVO/cost ratio. This indicates that crops that have high share ofcosts in electricity tend to have high profitability. Similarly,irrigation cost (0.63), diesel cost (0.57) and fertilizer cost(0.44) shares also indicate high correlation with GVO/costratio. This would indicate that crops which involveirrigation and which depend on fertilizer are the ones that

TABLE 3-4 ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION FOR DIFFERENT CROPS (KHARIF)—CONTD.

June, 2015 47

give high profitability. Also, machine hiring cost has a highnegative correlation (-0.40) with GVO/cost ratio. Thisindicates that crops requiring high share of machine hiring

are the ones with low profitability. Pesticide cost also hasa high negative correlation (-0.38) with profitability. Table3.5 shows the economics of cultivation for 10 crops in Rabi.

TABLE 3-5 ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION FOR DIFFERENT CROPS (RABI)

Crop Wheat Paddy Rapeseed Gram Potato Maize Coconut Sugar Masur Jowar& Mustard Cane

Proportion offarmers cultivatingthe crop 38.70% 9.33% 8.83% 6.69% 5.20% 3.00% 2.41% 2.41% 2.07% 1.68%

Land cultivated bythe farmers 0.87 0.756 1.031 1.526 0.588 0.835 0.572 1.045 0.893 1.355

Land under crop 0.616 0.594 0.375 0.741 0.177 0.504 0.224 0.548 0.260 0.701

Irrigated Land 0.584 0.486 0.326 0.438 0.133 0.373 0.145 0.538 0.179 0.151

under Crop

Unirrigated Land 0.032 0.108 0.049 0.303 0.044 0.129 0.076 0.005 0.081 0.547

Under Crop

Proportion of householdshaving irrigation 93% 83% 85% 59% 80% 76% 46% 97% 61% 30%

Yield in IrrigatedLand (Kg/ha) 3121 4636 1391 1003 15121 4769 8383 53668 975 3219

Yield in Irrigated 1874 4061 958 820 6341 3005 8199 30366 922 1197

Land (Kg/ha)

Total Value 26486 35889 15549 19692 14941 25140 9323 84095 8755 12117

Seed Cost 973(10) 1129(6) 391(7) 1429(17) 1616(25) 1536(11) 70(2) 3127(14) 324(12) 419(8)

Fertilizer Cost 2301(23) 3573(19) 1223(22) 1717(21) 1386(22) 3385(25) 742(18) 6286(28) 681(25) 1455(27)

Manure Cost 913(2) 246(1) 125(2) 126(2) 173(3) 323(2) 316(8) 649(3) 20(1) 133(3)

Plant Protection 553(5) 1701(9) 199(4) 644(8) 340(5) 785(6) 182(4) 824(4) 140(5) 212(4)

Chemicals Cost

Diesel Cost 881(9) 341(2) 546(10) 439(5) 146(2) 404(3) 80(2) 1143(5) 236(9) 166(3)

Electricity Cost 290(3) 62(0) 240(4) 380(5) 34(1) 96(1) 40(1) 967(4) 79(3) 177(3)

Human Labour Cost 1312(13) 5094(27) 931(17) 1275(15) 1265(20) 2555(19) 1697(40) 4019(18) 426(15) 1090(21)

Animal Labour 34(0) 209(1) 21(0) 66(1) 152(2) 214(2) 55(1) 491(2) 6(0) 433(8)

CostIrrigation Cost 591(6) 600(3) 351(6) 230(3) 413(6) 729(5) 206(5) 845(4) 115(4) 117(2)

Repair 259(3) 203(1) 186(3) 153(2) 46(1) 130(1) 52(1) 545(2) 67(2) 133(3)

Interest 123(1) 387(2) 43(1) 95(1) 23(0) 126(1) 204(5) 186(1) 27(1) 41(1)

Hiring Cost 1536(15) 2044(11) 974(18) 1148(14) 418(7) 1567(12) 173(4) 1491(7) 492(18) 519(10)

Lease Rent 815(8) 2458(13) 190(3) 273(3) 206(3) 1170(9) 199(5) 1001(5) 95(3) 187(4)

Other Expense 314(3) 610(3) 123(2) 320(4) 168(3) 412(3) 175(4) 577(3) 46(2) 210(4)

Total Cost 10173 18657 5542 8294 6386 13433 4191 22152 2755 5292

Returns 17232 11708 19236 8727 18555 4252 61943 4922 5662 8555

GVO/Costs 1.92 1.87 2.11 1.91 3.40 2.00 3.80 2.00 1.59 2.34


From Table 3.5, we observe that around 40% farmerscultivate wheat in Rabi. Paddy and rapeseed & mustardare cultivated by around 10% farmers in Rabi as well.Around 7% and 5% farmers cultivate gram and potato inRabi. Maize, cotton and sugarcane are cultivated in Rabiby around 3% and masur and jowar are cultivated byapproximately 2% of farm households in Rabi.

Farm households cultivating wheat on average have0.87 ha land under cultivation in Rabi. The total landcultivated by farm households cultivating paddy (0.76 ha).rapeseed & mustard (1.03 ha), potato (0.59 ha), maize (0.84ha), coconut (0.57 ha), sugarcane (1.05 ha), and masur (0.89ha) all hover around 0.5 to 1 ha. The total and cultivatedby farm household cultivating gram (1.53 ha) and jowar(1.36 ha) are higher and more in the vicinity of 1.5 ha. As apercentage of land cultivated under a crop to total landunder cultivation, it is above 50% for paddy (79%), wheat(71%), maize (60%), sugarcane (52%) and jowar (52%)suggesting these might be used more as major crops forfarmers doing intercropping in Rabi. These number are lessthan 50% for gram (49%), coconut (39%), rapeseed &mustard (46%), potato (30%) and masur (29%) suggestingthese might be used as more as minor crops by farmersdoing intercropping in Rabi. Also, the percentage of landunder irrigation is high for sugarcane (98%), wheat (95%)and rapeseed & mustard (87%) while it is low for jowar(22%) and gram (59%). The difference between unirrigatedand irrigated yield generally seems to be higher in Rabi ascompared to Kharif. The irrigated land yield as a percentageof unirrigated land yield is very high for jowar (269%),potato (238%), sugarcane (177%), wheat (167%), maize(159%) and rapeseed & mustard (145%) and not so highfor gram (122%), paddy (114%) masur (106%) and coconut(102%).

In term of profitability, coconut has the highest GVO/cost ratio of 3.80 while masur has the lowest GVO/costratio of 1.59. On observing the relation between costcomponent share and GVO/cost ratio, we find that manurecost share has a high correlation (0.85) with GVO/cost ratio.This indicates that crops that have high share of costs inmanure tend to have high profitability. Similarly, humanlabour cost share (0.72), and interest (0.51) also indicatehigh correlation with GVO/cost ratio. This would indicatethat crops which involve more human labour cost share inRabi have higher profitability. Aslo, machine hiring costhas a high negative correlation (-0.75) with GVO/cost ratio.This indicates that crops requiring high share of machinehiring are the ones with low profitability. Diesel costs (-

0.55), fertilizer cost (-0.43), electricity cost (-0.43) andminor repair cost (-0.42) also has a high negative correlationwith profitability.

In both Kharif and Rabi, seed cost shares has verylow correlation (0.03 & 0.11) with profitability of differentcrops. But, to understand the influence of seed cost onprofitability, we might have to look at how seed costs ineach crop varied based on variety of seeds used (hybrid/genetically modified/indigenous seeds). Fertilizer costshares have positive correlation (0.44) for Kharif cropsand high negative correlation (-0.44) for Rabi crops. Thismight mean high retruns to fertilizer usage for Kharif cropsand low returns to fertilizer usage for Rabi crops. Formanure, we find the reverse with small negative correlation(-0.24) in Kharif and high positive correlation (0.85) inRabi. Pesticide costs have a high negative correlation (-0.38 and -0.37) in both Kharif and Rabi. this might indicatewhy farmers would spend more on seeds which couldreduce pesticide costs. The seed cost shares have negligibleinfluence on profitability while pesticide cost shares seemto have a negative impact on profitability. This claim wouldhave to be tested more rigorously. Diesel cost share (0.57and -0.55), electricity cost share (0.77 and -0.43), minorrepair costs (0.13 and -0.42) have positive correlation withprofitability in Kharif crops and negative correlation withprofitability with Rabi crops. Irrigation cost shares (0.63and 0.33) and human labour cost shares (0.44 and 0.72)have positive correlation with profitability for both Kharifand Rabi crops. Animal labour cost share (-0.25 and 0.14)and interest (-0.22 and 0.51) have negative correlation withprofitability in Kharif and positive correlation withprofitability in Rabi. Machine hiring share (-0.40 and -0.75)and lease cost -0.22 and -0.25) have negative correlationwith profitability for both Kharif and Rabi crops. Landand machine ownership would be able to reduce these costsand increase profitability. The criticality of owning meansof production (land and machine) needs to be studied indetail for understanding this aspect.

3.4 Economics of Cultivation for Different LandholdingClasses

Table 3.6 shows cultivation economics of farm householdsbelonging to different land classes for Kharif 2012-13. Thetotal value and cost components are expressed in per haterms for easier comparability. We also ignore farmhouseholds which possess less than 0.01 ha from ouranalysis as it is a very small share of total households andalso only a very small proportion of these households areinvolved in crop cultivation.

June, 2015 49

TABLE 3-6 ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION FOR DIFFERENT LANDHOLDING SIZE CLASSES (KHARIF)

Land Classes based on 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

Total Land Possessed (in ha)

Proportion of Farm 31.86% 34.92% 17.16% 9.31% 3.72% 0.39% 100.00%

Households

% Cultivating 79.3% 91.4% 93.0% 93.4% 93.2% 96.7% 85.8%

Irrigated Land 0.125 0.305 0.617 0.993 2.080 4.473 0.469

Total Land 0.195 0.581 1.240 2.106 4.409 9.963 0.939

Total Value (TV) 49100 43449 40774 42723 45005 48317 43499

Land Class based on

Total Land Possessed (in ha) 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

Seed Cost 2010(9) 1701(10) 1668(11) 2271(137) 2383(14) 2433(12) 2005(12)

Fertilizer Cost 4895(23) 3787(23) 3345(21) 3546(21) 3405(20 3331(16) 3598(22)

Manure Cost 607(3) 515(3) 399(3) 462(2) 306(2) 341(2) 432(3)

Plant Protection Chemical Cost 1205(6) 1048(6) 1081(7) 1414(8) 1751(10) 1956(10) 1325(8)

Diesel Cost 637(3) 521(3) 522(4) 700(4) 983(6) 1871(9) 719(4)

Electricity Cost 135(1) 296(2) 242(2) 227(1) 260(2) 457(2) 258(2)

Human Labour Cost 4557(21) 3827(23) 3383(23) 3993(24) 3633(21) 4310(21) 3787(23)

Animal labour Cost 492(2) 423(3) 304(2) 290(2) 188(1) 91(0.4) 309(2)

Irrigation Cost 1492(7) 555(3) 301(2) 199(1) 141(1) 176(1) 373(2)

Minor Repair Cost 386(2) 274(2) 286(2) 345(2) 364(2) 586(3) 331(2)

Interest Cost 114(1) 172(2) 216(1) 295(2) 312(2) 348(2) 244(1)

Machine Hiring Cost 2473(12) 1787(11) 1534(10) 1558(9) 1331(8) 1062(5) 1595(10)

Lease Rent Cost 1186(6) 682(4) 848(6) 1106(7) 1660(10) 3165(16) 1150(7)

Other Cost 1139(5) 712(4) 568(4) 484(3) 360(2) 265(1) 564(3)

Total Cost (TC) 21328 16300 14697 16892 17078 20393 16691

TV/TC 2.30 2.67 2.77 2.53 2.64 2.37 2.61

TV/TC 2002-03 2.32 2.36 2.39 2.34 2.10 1.92 2.27

Change in TV/TC Profitability -1% 13% 16% 8% 25% 24% 15%

TV-TC (per ha) 27772 27149 26077 25831 27927 29725 26808

TV-TC (per ha) 2002-03 8037 7839 7355 6848 5811 3827 6725

Change in TV-TC Returns 246% 246% 255% 277% 381% 630% 299%


From Table 3.6. we find that more than 20% of farmhouseholds in the lowest land class do not participate incultivation. For other land classes it is less than 10% anddecreases with land sizes. The total value per hectaredecreases with land sizes for first 3 land classes but risesagain for the next 3 landholding classes. In 2002-03 survey,the total value per hectare decreased as we moved acrosslowest to highest land classes (Gaurav & Mishra, 2014)2.As far as total costs per ha are concerned, it declines fromlowest land class to 1-2 ha land class and then increasesthereafter. In 2002-03, the total costs decreased from lowestland class to 2-4 ha land class and then increased for thelast two land classes. In effect, the returns per has decreasesas we move from lowest land class to 2-4 ha land class andthen increases thereafter. In 2002-03, this returns decreasedas we moved from lowest to highest land classes. This mightindicate that the inverse size class productivity might notbe holding in the Indian context and this could be becauseof increased efficiency of operations in large farms ordecreased efficiency of operations in small farms.Profitability in terms of TV/TC increased from lowest landclass to 1-2 ha land class and then decreases for 2-4 haland class, increases again for 4—10 ha land class anddecreases for 10+ha land class. In 2002-03, this ratioincreased from lowest to 1-2 ha land class and thendecreased therefater. The lowest land class had lost 1% ofthis ratio from 2002-03 while the other land classes haveimproved this ratio. This ratio has improved more for thelarger land holding with the land class 2-10 ha and 10+hagaining 25% and 24%. All this seems to indicate that theeconomics of cultivation has deteriorated for the lowestland class and has improved for other land classes and thatthe largest land classes have gained disproportionately.Looking at the cost structure of the different land classescould indicate us if that is the case.

In terms of cost components, seed cost as a share oftotal cost increases from lowest to highest land class exceptthe last land class. Fertilizer cost as a share of total decreasesfrom lowest to highest land classes. Share of plantprotection chemical costs increases from lowest to highestland classes. Diesel cost. shares increases and 9% to highestland class. Irrigation cost shares decrease from lowest tohighest land classes with it being 7% for lowest land classand 1% for highest land class. Machine hiring costs alsodecline with land classes and contribute to 12% for lowestland class and 5% to highest land class. Human labour costshares is almost constant across land classes with the middleland classes having slightly higher shares. Lease rent costsseem to be increasing with land class except for the landclass 0.4-1 ha. Particularly, the lease rent cost shares for 4-10 ha and 10+ha are 10% and 16% respectively. For thelower 4 land classes, human labour, fertilizer, seed andmachine hiring costs are the most significant costs. For theupper 2 land classes, human labour, fertilizer, seed, leaserent and plant protection costs are the most significant costs.The findings seem to suggest that there is mechanisationacross all land classes and ownership of machines isdistributed in favour of higher land classes. This is seenfrom higher machine hiring cost shares for the lower landclasses. There seems to be some tendency of reversetenancy as seen from the lease rent cost share of largerland classes. In terms of changes in cost structure from2002-03 Kharif, we may not be able to make exactcomparisons as the cost components collected weredifferent in 2002-03. Also, while 2002-03 costs werereferred to as Kharif costs, the costs of 2012-13 was theparticular reference period. Still, a rough comparison isbound to give us some broad trends and we present thechanges in value and selected costs in Table 3.7 and changesin shares of the cost components in Table 3.8.

TABLE 3-7 CHANGES IN VALUE AND SELECTED COSTS FROM 2002-03 (KHARIF)

Land Class basedon

Total LandPossessed (in ha) 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ AllTotal Value (TV) 248% 219% 222% 257% 306% 503% 262%

Seed Cost 166% 107% 107% 171% 177% 246% 146%Fertilizer 223% 173% 162% 212% 185% 289% 194%Plant Protection 248% 161% 159% 217% 241% 365% 203%

Manual Labour 190% 150% 151% 207% 172% 302% 179%Interest 109% 155% 133% 212% 197% 330% 178%Lease rent 307% 126% 281% 413% 581% 1056% 361%

Total Cost (TC) 251% 182% 177% 231% 224% 388% 216%TV/TC -1% 13% 16% 8% 25% 24% 15%TV-TC 246% 246% 255% 277% 381% 630% 299%

2The economics of cultivation for 2002-03 Kharif and Rabi season are provided in Table A-1 and Table A-2 of Appendix A

June, 2015 51

From Table 3.7, we observe that for farm householdsas a whole total value increased by 262%, but total costsincreased by 216%. So TV/TC increased by 15% and TV-TC (per ha) increased by 299%. Among the different cost,only lease rent costs increased by more than total value(361%) and seed costs showed the smallest increase(146%). For each land class, we observe that the total costincreased by lesser than total value for all land class exceptthe lowest. For the lowest land class, total cost increased

by 251% while the total value increased by 248%. Amongthe various cost components for this land class, plantprotection and lease rent cost increased by 248% and 307%respectively. Apart from the 0.4-1 land class, lease renthas increased by more than total value for other classes.This seems to indicate a wide scale increase in eithertenancy or rents in tenancy. We will explore this in detailin the next subsection.

TABLE 3-8 CHANGES IN SHARES OF SELECTED COSTS FROM 2002-03 (KHARIF)

Land Class basedonTotal Land

Possessed (in ha) 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

Seed Cost -3% -4% -4% -3% -2% -5% -3%

Fertilizer -2% -1% -1% -1% -3% -4% -2%

Plant Protection 0% -1% -1% 0% 1% 0% 0%

Manual Labour -5% -3% -2% -2% -4% -5% -3%

Interest 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Lease rent 1% -1% 2% 2% 5% 9% 2%

Other costs

including

irrigation,

electricity,

machine hiring, etc 9% 9% 4% 7% 4% 5% 6%

From Table 3.8, we observe that farm households ingeneral are spending lesser shares in seeds (-3%), fertilizers(-2%) and manual labour (-3%) and higher shares in leaserent (+2%) and other costs including machine hiring,irrigation, diesel, electricity, animal labour, marketing, etc(+6%). The seed cost shares have reduces across all landclasses by 3-5% and fertilizer cost shares have reduced by1-4% across all land classes. Plant protection cost andinterest cost shares have remained more or less the same.Lease rent shares have increased for all land classes except0.4-1 ha and it has increased the most for last two landclasses by 5% and 9%. This again indicated a tendencytowards increasing reverse tenancy. Given total shares of

these cost components have shown a general decline theother shares must have risen. Though the exact compositionof this cost share change cannot be deciphered, what weseem to find is that cost shares including machine hiring,diesel, animal hiring, irrigation, etc., have increased. Thismeans that out of every rupee spent in farming a largershare now goes to mechanization and lease rent than2002-03. As we observed previously, these changes infarming seem to have affected farm households belongingto lowest class (0.01-0.4 ha) adversely. We also inquiresimilar issues for Rabi. Table 3.9 shows the economics ofcultivation for different land classes in Rabi 2012-13.


TABLE 3-9 ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION FOR DIFFERENT LANDHOLDING SIZE CLASSES (RABI)

Land Class based

on Total Land Possessed

(in ha) 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

Proportion of Farm

Households 31.86% 34.92% 17.16% 9.31% 3.72% 0.39% 100.00%

%Cultivating 71.9% 74.9% 70.3% 72.0% 69.0% 74.5% 70.84%

Irrigated Land 0.168 0.428 0.799 1.566 2.719 6.524 0.622

Total Land 0.200 0.529 1.029 1.979 3.530 8.260 0.785

Total Value (TV) 50775 49220 47781 43386 46537 43021 46917

Seed Cost 2621(11) 2143(11) 2125(11) 1694(10) 1923(10) 1432(8) 2004(11)

Fertilizer Cost 5330(23) 4705(23) 4176(22) 3625(21) 3530(19) 3047(18) 4116(22)

Manure Cost 525(2) 410(2) 481(2) 354(2) 410(2) 273(2) 416(2)

Plant Protection Chemical

Cost 1129(5) 1162(6) 1403(7) 1279(8) 1634(9) 1239(7) 1321(7)

Diesel Cost 755(3) 888(4) 964(5) 1102(7) 1508(8) 1758(10) 1083(6)



Animal labour Cost 283(1) 235(1) 234(1) 132(1) 84(0) 67(0) 182(1)

Irrigation Cost 2440(11) 1199(6) 826(4) 452(3) 289(2) 235(1) 850(4)


Interest Cost 104(0) 143(1) 241(1) 414(2) 344(2) 463(3) 273(1)


Lease Rent Cost 1575(7) 1087(5) 998(5) 1389(8) 2387(13) 2594(15) 1457(8)

Other Cost 911(4) 718(4) 642(3) 479(3) 436(2) 366(2) 599(3)

Total Cost (TC) 23023 20242 19297 16879 18493 17148 19035

TV/TC 2.30 2.67 2.77 2.53 2.64 2.37 2.61

TV/TC 2002-03 2.32 2.36 2.39 2.34 2.1 1.92 2.27

Change in TV/TC -1% 13% 16% 08% 25% 24% 15%

TV-TC (per ha) 27752 28978 28484 26507 28044 25874 27882

TV/TC (per ha) 2002-03 10892 8306 9171 9879 9477 8196 9225

Change in TV-TC (per ha) 155% 249% 211% 168% 196% 216% 202%

June, 2015 53

From Table 3.9, we find that roughly 25-30% of farmhouseholds of all land classes do not participate incultivation. The total value per hectare decreases with landclasses except the 5th land class which is higher than 4thand 6th land class. In 2002-03 survey, the total value perhectare for 0.4-1 ha was lower than that of 0.01-0.4 ha.This value then increased up to 2-4 ha land class and thendecreased thereafter. As far as total costs per ha areconcerned, it declines from lowest land class to 2-4 ha landclass and then increases for 4-10 ha land class and decreasesfor 10+ ha land class. In 2002-03 the total costs decreasedfrom lowest land class to 0.4-1 ha land class and thenincreased for 1-2 ha and then decreased thereafter. In effect,the returns per ha increases as we move from lowest landclass to 1-4 ha land class and then decreases till 2-4 ha andthen increases for the last two land classes. In 2002-03,this returrn decreased as we moved from lowest to 1-2 hathen increased for 2-4 ha and then decreased for last twoland classes. Profitability in terms of TV/TC increases fromlowest land class to 2-4 ha land class and then decreasesfor last two land classes. In 2002-03, this ratio decreasedfrom lowest to 0.4-1 ha land class and then increased till2-4 ha and then decreased for last two land classes. Thelowest land class has lost 5% of this ratio from 2002-03while the other land classes have improved this ratio. Thisratio has improved more for the larger land holding with

the land class 4-10 ha and 10+ ha gaining 12% and 18%.All this again seems to indicate that the economics ofcultivation has deteriorated for the lowest land class andhas improved for other land classes and that the largestland classes have gained disproportionately. Looking atthe cost structure of the different land classes in Rabi, wefind that the trends for most cost components remain thesame. Fertilizer cost shares, plant protection chemical costshares, diesel cost shares all increases from lowest tohighest land class. Seed cost shares, unlike in Kharifdecreases from lowest to highest land classes. Irrigationcost shares and machine hiring costs decrease from lowestto highest land classes. Human labour cost shares is almostconstant across land classes with the middle land classeshaving slightly higher shares and also households seem tospending leasser share of total costs in human labour inRabi as compared to Kharif. Lease rent cost seem to beincreasing with land class except for the land class 0.4-1ha and 1-2 ha. Particularly, the lease rent cost shares for 4-10 ha and 10+ ha are 13% and 15% respectively. This againseems to support out hypothesis of increasing reversetenancy. In terms of changes in cost structure from 2002-03 Rabi, we present the changes in value and selected costsin Table 3.10 and changes in shares of the cost componentsin Table 3.11.

TABLE 3-10 CHANGES IN VALUE AND SELECTED COSTS FROM 2002-03 (RABI)

Land Class basedon Total LandProcessed (in ha) 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

Total Value (TV) 160% 235% 195% 161% 189% 214% 194%

Seed Cost 72% 92% 76% 45% 82% 59% 74%

Fertilizer 157% 222% 168% 152% 158% 202% 180%

Plant Protection 202% 278% 294% 256% 258% 217% 259%

Manual Labour 132% 243% 215% 170% 157% 154% 190%

Interest 467% 323% 487% 894% 604% 553% 558%

Lease rent 300% 232% 239% 254% 454% 406% 291%

Total Cost (TC) 166% 216% 174% 150% 179% 211% 182%

TV/TC -5% 5% 5% 8% 12% 18% 7%

TV-TC 155% 249% 211% 168% 196% 216% 202%

From Table 3.10, we observe that for farmhouseholds as a whole total value in 2012-13 Ravi increasedby 194%, but total costs increased by 182%. So TV/TCincreased by 7% and TV-TC (per ha) increased by 202%.Among the different cost components, plant protectionchemcial cost (259%), interest cost (558%) and lease rentcosts (291%) increased by more than total value and seedcosts showed the smallest increase (74%). For each landclass, we observe that the total cost increased by lesser

than total value for all land class except the lowest. For thelowest land class, total cost increased by 166% while thetotal value increased by 160%. Among the various costcomponents for this land class, plant protection, interestand lease rent cost increased by 202%, 467% and 300%respectively. Apart from the 0.4-1 land class, lease renthas increased by more than total value for other classes.This again seems to support our conjecture of increasedtenancy or tenancy costs.


TABLE 3-11 CHANGES IN SHARES OF SELECTED COSTS FROM 2002-03 (RABI)

Land Class basedonTotal LandPossessed (in ha) 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

Seed Cost -6% -7% -6% -7% -6% -8% -7%Fertilizer -1% 0% -1% 0% -2% -1% 0%Plant Protection 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% -% 1%Manual Labour -2% 2% 3% 2% -2% -4% 1%Interest 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%Lease rent 2% 0% 1% 2% 6% 6% 2%Other costs includingirrigation, electricity,machine hiring, etc 6% 3% 0% -1% -1% 6% 2%

From Table 3.11, we observe that farm householdsas a whole are spending lesser shares in seeds (-7%) andhigher shares in plant protection chemicals (+1%), manuallabour (+1%), interest (+1%) lease rent (+2%) and othercosts including machine hiring, irrigation, diesel, electricity,animal labour, marketing, etc (+2%). The seed costs sharesin rabi have reduced across all and classes by 6-8% andfertilizer cost shares have reduced by 0-2% across all landclasses.Plant protection cost share increased by 0 to 2%.Lease rent shares have increased for all land classes except0.4-1 ha and it has increased the most for last two landclasses by 6%. Labour shares have increased for 0.4-1 ha,1-2 ha and 2-4 ha land classes and decreased for otherclasses. The other cost shares in Rabi have remained thesame for 1-2 ha land class, declined by 1% for 2-4 and4-10 ha and increased for other land classes.

3.5 Tenancy and its Impact on Economics of Cultivation

We observe from the previous section that farmers acrossall land classes are spending more on lease rent. This couldbe due to increase in instance or tenancy or due to increasein lease rent amounts. We check on the prevalence oftenancy across different states and land classes. Forunderstanding this, we estimate the number of farmhouseholds that are leasing in land. Table 3.12 shows theproportion of farm households that are leasing in landacross different states of India.

TABLE 3-12 CHANGES IN TENANCY ACROSS DIFFERENT STATES

Proportion Proportionof Farm of Farm

Households HouseholdsLeasing-in Leasing-in

Land in Land in2012-13 2002-03 Change

1 2 3 4

All India 16.42% 12.76 3.66%

Jammu & Kashmir 0.91% 1.00% -0.10%

Himachal Pradesh 9.30% 8.86% 0.44%

Punjab 22.55% 14.76% 7.78%

1 2 3 4

Chandigarh 3.71% 38.78% -35.07%

Uttaranchal 8.78% 5.10% 3.68%

Haryana 13.91% 14.29% -0.38%

Delhi 6.28% 2.42% 3.86%

Rajasthan 9.38% 5.52% 3.86%

Uttar Pradesh 16.43% 16.96% -0.53%

Bihar 29.28% 19.52% 9.76%

Sikkim 17.24% 19.32% -2.09%

Arunachal Pradesh 6.64% 7.40% -0.76%

Nagaland 3.25% 1.49% 1.76%

Manipur 9.56% 14.60% -5.03%

Mizoram 1.89% 1.47% 0.42%

Tripura 18.38% 18.12% 0.25%

Meghalaya 10.56% 17.70% -7.15%

Assam 11.22% 10.00% 1.22%

West Bengal 37.18% 19.11% 18.07%

Jharkhand 10.71% 3.87% 6.84%

Odisha 25.99% 23.39% 2.60%

Chhattisgarh 17.72% 11.71% 6.00%

Madhya Pradesh 7.11% 7.26% -0.15%

Gujarat 6.24% 3.96% 2.29%

Daman & Diu 1.85% 0.00% 1.85%

D & N Haveli 1.11% 0.05% 1.06%

Maharashtra 5.21% 6.43% -1.22%

Andhra Pradesh 35.59% 16.92% 18.68%

Karnataka 9.97% 5.70% 4.27%

Goa 15.41% 20.63% -5.21%

Lakshadweep 6.77% 2.63% 4.15%

Kerala 15.86% 7.69% 8.17%

Tamil Nadu 11.30% 13.32% -2.03%

Puducherry 14.06% 25.28% -11.22%

A & N Islands 3.37% 5.25% -1.88%

Telengana 14.14% — —

June, 2015 55

From, Table 3.2, we observe that incidence of tenancyhas increased at all level. The percentage of farmhouseholds leasing-in land has increased by 3.66% from12.76% to 16.42%. This increase in highest in AndhraPradesh and West Bengal. In the two states, percentage offarmers leasing in land increased from 16.92% to 35.59%and 19.11% to 37.18% respectively. In Bihar, percentageof farm households leasing-in land increased from 19.52%to 29.28%. There have been very few major states in whichpercentage of farmers leasing-in land has decreased. Thepercentage of farm households leasing-in land decreasedfrom 13.32% to 11.3% in Tamil Nadu will it decreasedfrom 6.43%to 5.21 in Maharashtra.

Table 3.13 presents the percentage of farmhouseholds leasing-in land across different land classes andchanges from 2002-03.

TABLE 3-13 CHANGES IN TENANCY ACROSS DIFFERENT

LAND CLASSES

Land class Proportion of Proportion of Changesbased on Farm House- Farm House-total land holds Leasing- holds Leasing-possessed in Land in in Land in

2012-13 2002-03

1 2 3 4

<0.01 1.72% 2.7% -1.02%

0.01-0.4 17.71 11.83% 5.88%

1 2 3 4

0.4-1 15.88% 14.14% 1.74%

1-2 15.10% 13.58% 1.52%2-4 16.73% 12.77% 3.96%4-10 25.01% 12.99% 12.02%

10+ 28.36% 14.49% 13.87%All 16.42% 12.76% 3.66%

From the Table 3.13, we observe that except forlowest land class, percentage of farm households leasingin land has increased for all the land classes. The increaseis less for 0.4-1 ha and 1-2 ha where the percentage ofhouseholds leasing-in land increased by 1.74% and 1.52%only. Across 0.01-0.4 ha, the increase was 5.88% whilethat for 2-4 ha is 3.96%. The highest increase in percentagefarm households leasing-in-land is across 4-10 ha and10+ ha and the increase is 12.02% and 13.87% respectively.This indicates that both tenancy among farm householdswith very low and reverse tenancy among farm householdswith very large land are on rise. The percentage of farmhouseholds leasing-in-land across different landholdingclasses for different states for 2012-13 and 2002-03 arepresented in Table A-1 and Table A-2 of Appendix A. Toreiterate, the comparison has to be made with the caveat inmind that the 2012-12 survey included those householdswhich did not own any land but 2002-03 survey did not.Table 3.14 looks at economics of cultivation for tenantsacross different land classes in Kharif 2012-13.

TABLE 3-14 ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION FOR TENANTS (KHARIF 2012-13)

Households leasing in land and land class category

0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

Total Value (TV) 47873(97) 40649(92) 28584(65) 45980(109) 54798(132) 46728(95) 43156(99)Seed Cost 2196(112) 1705(100) 1091(60) 2881(134) 2416(102) 2069(78) 2010(100)Fertilizer Cost 5005(103) 4016(107) 2699(77) 4566(137) 3917(122) 3770(124) 3815(108)Manure Cost 365(54) 514(100) 292(69) 665(158) 202(59) 274(71) 382(86)Plant Protection 1299(110) 1427(146) 1041(95) 2333(189) 2156(134) 2176(120) 1737(142)Chemical Cost 0.01-0.4 0.01-0.4 0.01-0.4 0.01-0.4 0.01-0.4 0.01-0.4 0.01-0.4Diesel Cost 831(142) 658(133) 343(61) 872(131) 1208(134) 1985(110) 884(131)Electricity Cost 31(19) 131(40) 171(66) 194(83) 225(83) 134(20) 169(60)Human Labour Cost 6936(177) 4797(132) 3436(102) 6589(189) 4129(119) 5463(153) 4830(137)Animal labour Cost 196(34) 326(74) 180(54) 411(154) 192(103) 149(275) 250(77)Irrigation Cost 1724(121) 791(155) 271(88) 301(168) 138(97) 312(353) 432(121)Minor Repair Cost 402(105) 192(66) 157(49) 394(118) 482(149) 275(35) 312(93)Interest Cost 126(114) 188(111) 271(134) 757(371) 424(155) 401(128) 386(186)Machine Hiring Cost 2859(121) 2194(128) 1179(73) 1777(117) 1785(152) 847(71) 1694(108)Lease Rent Cost 5646(86447) 4260(29217) 3644(2478) 6668(247391) 6348(10782955) 8089(57106) 5492(13277)Other Cost 1030(88) 630(87) 406(67) 758(176) 391(112) 265(100) 534(93)Total Cost (TC) 28646(148) 21830(143) 15184(104) 29167(202) 24012(164) 26211(157) 22927(152)TV-TC 19228(64) 18819(66) 13400(46) 16813(61) 30786(114) 20517(63) 20229(71)TV/TC 1.67(66) 1.86(65) 1.88(63) 1.58(54) 2.28(80) 1.78(60) 1.88(65)

NOTE: Value and Cost figures are in per ha. Figures in brackets indicate the ratio of the statistic for farmers leasing-in land to those notleasing-in land in the same land class.


For tenants across all land classes, the total valuegenerated per ha by farm households leasing-in land is INR43,156 per ha which is almost same as the value generatedby farmers who do not lease-in any land. But, the costsincurred by tenant farmers are much higher than that ofthat of non-tenant farmers. Tenant farmers spend INR2,29,27 per ha in Kharif which is 152% of non-tenant farmhouseholds. As a result the returns for tenant farmers isINR 20,299 per ha which is 71% of the non-tenant farmhouseholds. Profitability as measure by TV/TC is 1.88which is just 65% of that of non-tenant households. Apartfrom lease rent which is higher for tenant farm households,they also seem to spend more that non-tenants in interest,plant protection chemicals, human labour, diesel, irrigation,machine hiring and fertilizers. They spend lesser in seeds,minor repair, manure, animal labour and electricity. Thetenants possessing land in 0.01-0.4 ha spend more in seedcosts along with the costs mentioned above and genarate97% of TV as the non-tenants in the same land class.Returns for tenants in this class are 64% of non-tenants inthis class and profitability was 66% of non-tenants in thesame land class. For the land classes 0.41-1 ha, 1-2 ha,2-4 ha, 4-10 ha and 10+ha, the returns per has for tenantswas 66%, 46%, 61%, 114%, 63% and 71% of the non-

tenants in their corresponding land classes. Similarly, theprofitability for tenants was 65%, 63%, 54%, 80%, 60%and 65% of the non-tenants in their corresponding landclasses. The tenant farm households were able to generatea higher profitability in returns per ha for tenants in relationto non-tenants in Kharif 2002-03. This seems to indicatethat long with increasing tenancy, the situation of tenantsalso has become relatively bad. The economics ofcultivation for tenants in Kharif 2002-03 and Rabi 2002-03are mentioned in Table C-1 and Table C-2 of Appendix Crespectively. In 2002-03, tenant households spent more thannon-tenant households in all cost components to producevalue higher than non-tenants. But, in 2012-13, tenanthouseholds are not spending more in some cost heads,probably because of high lease rents, but total costs is higherfor these households. Since they do no spend in some headslike fertilizer, manure, seed, etc., they seem to generatingvalue less than non-tenant households. Rabi costs showsimilar trends, but value generated by tenant farmhouseholds is higher than non-tenant housholds across allthe land classes. But the high total cost means lower returnsper ha and lower profitability for tenant households. Table3.15 shows the economics of cultivation for tenants in Rabi2012-13.

TABLE 3-15 ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION FOR TENANTS (RABI 2012-13)


0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

Total Value (TV) 54371(109) 50333(103) 56927(124) 61062(153) 56156(131) 49177(125) 55218(123)

Seed Cost 3049(122) 2393(115) 2229(106) 2229(140) 2303(129) 1909(167) 2334(121)

Fertilizer Cost 6327(126) 5307(116) 5313(135) 5352(162) 4337(134) 3308(114) 5040(130)

Manure Cost 530(101) 400(97) 316(61) 492(150) 479(124) 268(97) 421(101)

Plant Protection

Chemical Cost 1509(149) 1595(149) 3304(327) 2821(287) 2526(194) 1764(191) 2366(223)

Diesel Cost 940(135) 791(87) 761(76) 1294(122) 1562(105) 2005(125) 1163(109)



Animal labour Cost 191(62) 217(91) 226(96) 157(123) 139(219) 80(134) 176(96)

Irrigation Cost 3032(134) 1656(151) 1432(204) 571(133) 226(72) 287(141) 1112(142)


Interest Cost 102(98) 224(179) 563(323) 1585(836) 400(124) 977(631) 637(351)


Lease Rent Cost 5172(1051) 5431(3751) 5616(12021) 8260(11083) 8641(12110) 6793(9856) 6799(5624)

Other Cost 798(84) 671(92) 963(167) 1126(317) 475(113) 423(128) 763(137)

Total Cost (TC) 30048(144) 28216(152) 30471(179) 33542(245) 28507(193) 25115(203) 29655(181)

TV-TC 24322(84) 22117(73) 26456(92) 27520(105) 27649(98) 24062(89) 25563(90)

TV/TC 1.81(76) 1.78(67) 1.87(69) 1.82(62) 1.97(68) 1.96(62) 1.86(68)

NOTE: Value and Cost figures are in per ha. Figures in brackets indicate the ratio of the statistic for farmers leasing-in land to those notleasing-in land in the same land class.

June, 2015 57

3.6 Diversification and its Impact of Economics ofCultivation

Farm households diversify their crop portfolio bycultivating more than one crop in their fields. In the survey,data on upto 5 crops cultivated by farm households was

collected. We analyse the economics of cultivation basedon number of crops cultivated by them in Kharif and Rabi2012-13. table 3.16 shows diversification and its impacton economics of cultivation for Kharif 2012-13 and Table3.17 shows the same for Rabi 2012-13.

TABLE 3-16 DIVERSIFICATION AND ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION (KHARIF 2012-13)

Number of Crops 1 2 3 4 5

% of Cultivating 60.4% 24.3% 9.8% 3.5% 2.0%TV 38487(100) 47013(122) 50412(131) 43421(113) 50451(131)Seed Cost 1732(100) 2297(133) 2171(125) 2267(131) 1842(106)Fertilizer 3490(100) 3600(103) 3663(105) 3924(112) 4238(121)Manure 426(100) 455(107) 434(102) 308(72) 610(143)Plant Protection 1102(100) 1434(130) 1678(152) 1618(147) 1113(101)Diesel 499(100) 938(188) 909(182) 856(172) 604(121)Electricity 191(100) 324(170) 272(142) 342(179) 382(200)Human Labour 3782(100) 3856(102) 3667(97) 3411(90) 4867(129)Animal Labour 311(100) 315(101) 310(100) 295(95) 237(76)Irrigation 482(100) 336(70) 239(50) 162(34) 241(50)Minor Repair 261(100) 394(151) 360(138) 443(170) 395(151)Interest 185(100) 222(120) 410(222) 364(197) 181(98)Machine hiring 1760(100) 1543(88) 1439(82) 1293(73) 1014(58)Lease rent 1065(100) 1310(123) 1361(128) 564(53) 1114(105)Other cost 606(100) 558(92) 520(86) 389(64) 610(101)Total cost 15892(100) 17582(111) 17433(110) 16235(102) 17450(110)TV-TC (per ha) 22595(100) 29431(130) 32979(146) 27186(120) 33001(146)TV/TC 2.42(100) 2.67(110) 2.89(119) 2.67(110) 2.89(119)

NOTE: Value and Cost figures are in per ha. Figures in brackets indicate the ratio of the statistic for farm households cultivating 'n' crops to those

cultivating only 1 crop

TABLE 3—17 DIVERSIFICATION AND ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION (RABI 2012-13)

Number of Crops 1 2 3 4 5

% of Cultivating 55.5% 27.5% 9.9% 4.2% 2.9%TV 45286(100) 47759(105) 47290(104) 46501(103) 57913(128)Seed Cost 1846(100) 2040(111) 2049(111) 2516(136) 2393(130)Fertilizer 4199(100) 3978(95) 3999(95) 4214(100) 5052(120)Manure 496(100) 351(71) 352(71) 292(59) 708(143)Plant Protection 1383(100) 1336(97) 1249(90) 1068(77) 1244(90)Diesel 654(100) 1337(204) 1437(220) 1423(218) 1222(187)Electricity 382(100) 493(129) 448(117) 454(119) 530(139)Human Labour 3818(100) 3101(81) 3565(93) 4014(105) 6661(174)Animal Labour 274(100) 106(39) 126(46) 166(61) 175(64)Irrigation 1027(100) 793(77) 597(58) 643(63) 959(93)Minor Repair 284(100) 474(167) 385(135) 437(154) 443(156)Interest 224(100) 328(147) 232(104) 351(157) 362(162)Machine hiring 2464(100) 2343(95) 1841(75) 2009(82) 2324(94)Lease rent 1248(100) 1631(131) 1799(144) 1003(80) 1311(105)Other cost 769(100) 533(69) 377(49) 485(63) 557(72)Total cost 19069(100) 18843(99) 18457(97) 19076(100) 23941(126)TV-TC (per ha) 26218(100) 28916(110) 28833(110) 27425(105) 33973(130)TV/TC 2.37(100) 2.53(107) 2.56(108) 2.44(103) 2.42(102)

NOTE: Value and Cost figures are in per ha. Figures in brackets indicate the ratio of the statistic for farm households cultivating 'n' crops to those

cultivating only 1 crop


From Table 3.16 and 3.17 we observe that 60.4% offarmers who cultivate in Kharif and 55.5% of farmers whocultivate in Rabi cultivate only one crop. 24.3% of them inKharif and 27.5% in Rabi cultivate 2 crops in their farm,9.8% in Kharif and 9.9% in Rabi cultivate 3 crops. 5.5%of cultivating farm households in Kharif and 7.1% ofcultivating farm households in Rabi cultivate 4 or morecrops in their farm. This indicates a higher diversificationin terms of number of crops cultivated in Rabi. In bothKharif and Rabi, total value generated by farm householdsper ha is higher among farm households cultivating morethan 1 crop as compared to those who are practising mono-cropping. Though the farm households cultivating morethan 1 crop also incur more costs in Kharif, the gain intotal value is higher than the increased total costs for all n.In rabi, the per ha costs are lower for households cultivating2 and 3 crops compared to mono-cropping households andhigher for farm households cultivating 4 and 5 cropscompared to moni-cropping farm households. In effectreturns per ha for farm households cultivating 2, 3, 4 and 5crops is 130%, 146%, 120% and 146% that of farmhouseholds who practice mono-cropping in Kharif2012-13 and 110%, 110%, 105% and 130% that of farmhouseholds who practice mono-cropping in Rabi 2012-13.Similarly, profitability (TV/TC) for farm householdscultivating 2, 3, 4 and 5 crops is 110%, 119% 110% and119% that of farm households who practice mono-croppingin Kharif 2012-13 and 107%, 108%, 103% and 102% thatof farm households who practice mono-cropping in Rabi2012-13. It seems that higher diversification is profitableand provides higher returns per ha than mono-cropping.

4. Incomes from Livestock

This section discusses the economics of livestock for thefarm households engaged in it. Farm households earn valuefrom eggs, milks, live animals and other by-products oflivestock and spend money on buying the animals ('seeds'),feeds for them, labour, interest and other charges. Table4.1 below shows the economics of livestock for farmhouseholds in Kharif and Rabi. It shows the share of totalvalue earned by households through sale of differentproducts and share of different cost components in totalcost for Kharif and Rabi.

TABLE 4.1 ECONOMICS OF LIVESTOCK

July-December 2012 January-June 2013

Total Value 17940 16761

Egg 129(0.7) 155(0.9)

Milk 12180(67.9) 11611(69.3)

Live Animals 3348(18.7) 2661(15.9)

Wool 80(0.4) 11(0.1)

Fish 318(1.8) 394(2.4)

July-December 2012 January-June 2013

Honey, Hide,Bone and

Manure 1094(6.1) 1136(6.8)

Other 791(4.4) 792(4.7)

Total Cost 9228 7630

Seed' Costs 974(10.6) 524(6.9)

Green Fodder 696(7.5) 454(6)

Dry Fodder 2342(25.4) 1433(18.8)

Concentrates 3662(39.7) 3779(49.5)

Other Feed 381(4.1) 356(4.7)

Veterinary 651(7.1) 631(8.3)

Interest 27(0.3) 12(0.2)

Lease 19(0.2) 27(0.4)

Labour 173(1.9) 173(2.3)

Other 305(3.3) 241(3.2)

Returns 8712 9131

Total Value/

Total Cost 1.94 2.20

From Table 4.1, we observe that households earn atotal value of INR 17,940 in Kharif but a lesser total valueof INR 16,761 in Rabi. The Rabi total value is 93% ofKharif total value. This is largely due to reduction in totalvalue in milk and live animals which are 95% and 79% ofthe respective total values in Kharif. But the reduction inRabi total value does not reduce the returns as costs aredisproportionately lesser in Rabi. The average income inRabi is INR 9,131 which is 105% of Kharif net income ofINR 8,712. If we look at the cost shares concentrate anddry fodder feed are the highest cost items in total cost acrosstwo seasons. The total cost in Rabi is only 83% of totalcost in Kharif. The reduction is largely due to lesser seedcosts, green fodder and dry fodder costs in Rabi. This couldalso be because green and dry fodder could be obtained asby-products from Kharif cultivation and thus could reducelivestock costs in Rabi. The profitability measured as GVO/cost is 1.94 in Kharif while it is 2.2 in Rabi. Both of theseare lesser than that realised in cultivation.

5 Incomes from Nonfarm Business

Farm households earn incomes from various nonfarmbusinesses. Only 8.54% of all the farm households wereinvolved in nonfarm businesses. The nonfarm businessesbelonged to various industries. Based on NIC 2008classification, the farm households were involved in asmany as 21 various industry divisions. Out of this, 1 or 2households were involved in as many as 9 industries. So,we just present the data of output, expenses, net receiptand profitability (output/expenses) for 12 industries only.Table 5.1 provides the data.

June, 2015 59

TABLE 5-1 NONFARM BUSINESS INCOMES ACROSS DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES

Industry Proportion of households Output Expenses Net Receipt Profitabilityinvolved in Nonfarm

Business

Agriculture, forestry and fishing 0.60% 254255 83878 170377 3.03

Mining and Quarrying 0.34% 2132745 1631022 501722 1.31

Manufacturing 27.32% 197160 131433 65727 1.50

Electricity, gas, steam andair-conditioning supply 0.03% 47505 5420 42085 8.76

Water supply, sewerage andwaste management 0.02% 998739 748709 250030 1.33

Construction 4.02% 281355 223017 58338 1.26

Wholesale and retail trade 41.99% 394019 329908 64111 1.19

Transportation and storage 12.64% 345566 215553 130013 1.60

Accomodation and food service 4.06% 305992 209651 96342 1.46

Information and Communication 0.23% 157278 107662 49616 1.46

Financial and Insurance Activities 0.75% 193091 96563 96528 2.00

Real estate activities 0.77% 707516 279944 427572 2.53

All Nonfarm Business 281130 208402 72728 1.35

From Table 5.1, we observe that average output fromnonfarm business is INR 2,81,130 for which the householdhas to spend INR 2,08,402. The net receipt is INR 72,728.The output per rupee spent is very low as compard tocultivation or livestock at 1.35. This seems to indicate thatfarm household enter into these businesses more as a lastresort than in a lookout for profitable opportunities. Around42% of household that participate in nonfarm businessesdo so in the wholesale and retail industry and it has a verypoor profitability of 1.19. Manufacturing andTransportation & Storage industries have slightly betterprofitability but also slightly lower participation with 27%and 13% of households participating in these industriesrespectively. Around 4% of houiseholds participate in bothConstruction and Accommodation & Food service and the

profitability is 1.26 and 1.46 in these industriesrespectively.

6 Income fromWages/Salary

Farm households earnwages and salary from variety ofindustries. In Kharif, 43.24% of the farm householdparticipate in activities that provide wages and salary whilein Rabi, 49.69% farm households participate in theseactivities. Higher proportions of households earn wageincome in Rabi as compared to Kharif. Table 6.1 providesthe data on participation of households and their averageincomes related to wage/salaried employment in Kharifand Rabi. The classification is based on the NIC code ofprincipal activity of the individual which is then addedacross the individuals in a household to get wage incomefrom a particular industry for households.

TABLE 6-1 INCOMES FROM WAGE/SALARIES ACROSS DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES

Proportion of Proportion ofhouseholds household

earning earning Average Averagewage wage wage/salary wage/salary

incomes in incomes in incomes in incomes inIndustry Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi

1 2 3 4 5

Agriculture, forestry and fishing 61.93% 58.40% 13429 15079

Mining and Quarrying 0.85% 0.65% 37449 42963

Manufacturing 7.50% 7.73% 27514 28301

Electricity, gas, steam and air-conditioning supply 0.46% 0.41 67900 61106


Water supply, sewerage and waste management 0.26% 0.24% 67193 66948Construction 19.76% 23.99% 22712 22500Wholesale and retain trade 2.53% 2.97% 27559 27676Transportation and storage 4.48% 4.39% 39380 38970Accommodation and food service 0.40% 0.41% 25824 26226Information and Communication 0.31% 0.25% 41985 49676Financial and Insurance Activities 0.64% 0.56% 72332 72981Real estate activities 0.01% 0.00% 47083 19153Professional, scientific and technical 0.38% 0.34% 69897 72140Administrative and support service 0.91% 0.83% 54123 48613Public administration and defence 3.14% 2.74% 70425 83289Education 5.20% 4.82% 61411 65565Health 1.01% 0.87% 58999 57046Arts 0.12% 0.19% 31704 28809Other Services 0.73% 0.78% 20915 20824Household activities 0.12% 0.23% 16629 5754Other Industries 2.33% 3.52% 7521 19484

In terms of participation of households in wageincome, 62% and 58% of households earning from wage/salaried employment participate in Agricultural, forestryand fishing industry in Kharif and Rabi respectively. Thenext highest participation is in Construction where theproportion is 20% and 24% in Kharif and Rabi respectively.It is then followed by manufacturing (7.5% and 7.73% inKharif and Rabi respectively). The other industries in whichthere is reasonable participation in Kharif and Rabi areWholesale and retail trade (2.53% and 2.97%).Transportation & storage (4.48% and 4.39%), Education(5.2% and 4.82%) and Public administration and defence(3.14% and 2.74%). The percentage of householdsparticipating in wage employment in different industriesfor Kharif and Rabi remains mostly same except forAgriculture, fishing and forestry and Construction. While

more households participate in agricultural sector in Kharifthan in Rabi, more households participate in Constructionin Rabi than in Kharif, Construction seems to be the mostimportant source of wage income for farm households afteragriculture. Manufacturing does not seem to provideenough employment opportunities to these households. Interms of average incomes earned by households in differentindustries participating in it, construction and agricultureare at bottom while manufacturing does slightly better thanthese two sectors in this regard.

We also look at the household incomes based onincomes earned by types of employment. For this wecategorize individual income earned according to statusof the principal activity. Table 6.2 below shows theparticipation of various households and income earned byhouseholds in each of these occupation categories.

TABLE 6-2 INCOMES FROM WAGES/SALARIES ACROSS DIFFERENT EMPLOYMENT TYPES

Proportion of Proportion ofhouseholds household

earning earning Average Averagewage wage wage/salary wage/salary

incomes in incomes in incomes in incomes inEmployment type Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi

1 2 3 4 5

Own Account Worker 27.1% 24.2% 7937 8613

Own Account Employer 1.1% 0.5% 9740 11735

Helper in HH Enterprise 16.8% 14.7% 7258 7921

Regular salaries/wage Employment 18.3% 16.6% 52882 57690

Casual labour other than MGNREGA 1.4% 1.4% 13941 15306

MGNREGA 1.5% 1.9% 8706 8050

Other types of casual work 32.0% 37.9% 22159 22065

TABLE 6-1 INCOMES FROM WAGE/SALARIES ACROSS DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES—CONTD.

1 2 3 4 5

June, 2015 61

From Table 6.2, we observe that 32% of householdsearning wage income in Kharif and 38% of householdsearning wage income in Rabi have individuals engaged incasual labour. The propotion engaged in MGNREGA is1.4% and 1.5% Around 27.1% in Kharif and 24.2% in Rabihave individuals engaged in own account work.Hoiuseholds earn low incomes from own account work, ashelpers and MGNREGA while they earn the highest fromregular salaried/wage employment. More households haveindividuals participating in casual work and MGNREGAin Rabi than in Kharif.

7 Poverty and Inequality in Farm Households

Sections 2 to 6 provided the analysis of total income andincome components of farm households. This section willanalyse the implications of these numbers on poverty,indebtedness and inequality in farm households. Firstly,we will analyse state-wise variations in percentage of farm

households earning below poverty line. After that, we lookinto state-wise increases in percentage of farmers havingoutstanding loand and changes since 2002-03. Then, wewill analyse income inequality across farm households inIndia and decompose the effect of diferent incomecomponents on total income inequality.

7.1 Poverty among Farm Households in India

To estimate the percentage of population earning belowpoverty line, we use poverty lines for states as defined bythe methodology suggested by Rangarajan committee(Planning commission, 2014)., Since the lines weresuggested for 2011-12, we convert the income to 2011-12incomes and divide by household size to get per capitaincomes of the households. Then, percentage of householdsearning below poverty line was estimated for different statesand union territories.

TABLE 7-1 FARM HOSEHOLDS EARNING LESS THAN POVERTY LINE

Sr. State Per Capita Poverty Line (INR Percentage of Population earning PerNo. Per Capita Per Month) Capita Incomes below Poverty Line

1 2 3 4

1. Jammu & Kashmir 12534 32-75%

2. Himachal Pradesh 12799 44.37%

3. Punjab 13530 26.38%

4. Chandigarh 15638 16.96%

5. Uttaranchal 12179 66.91%

6. Haryana 13534 32.52%

7. Delhi 17910 9.12%

8. Rajasthan 12432 49.17%

9. Uttar Pradesh 10678 66.78%

10. Bihar 11655 71.88%

11. Sikkim 13515 38.88%

12. Arunachal Pradesh 13812 58.10%

13. Nagaland 14758 53.63%

14. Manipur 14222 54.88%

15. Mizoram 14772 51.61%

16. Tripura 11226 49.41%

17. Meghalaya 13328 30.17%

18. Assam 12080 50.38%

19. West Bengal 11209 56.94%

20. Jharkhand 10848 62.12%

21. Orissa 10517 58.03%

22. Chhattisgarh 10942 51.07%

23. Madhya Pradesh 11300 50.52%

24. Gujarat 13234 34.73%

25. Daman & Diu 14407 46.68%


26. Dadra & Nagar Haveli 12101 30.96%27. Maharashtra 12940 49.30%28. Andhra Pradesh 12381 44.30%29. Karnataka 11705 41.83%30. Goa 14407 40.22%31. Lakshadweep 15933 34.49%32. Kerala 12648 26.31%33. Tamil Nadu 12983 47.11%34. Puducherry 13561 65.71%35. Andaman & Nicobar Islands 15780 47.74%36. Telangana 12381 39.65%

All India 53.37%

From the Table 7.1, we find that the overall farmhouseholds earning below poverty line is 53.37%. A veryhigh proportion of farm households in Bihar (71.9%),Uttaranchal (66.9%), Uttar Pradesh (66.8%), Puducherry(65.7%) and Jharkhand (62.12%) earn less than povertyline. All these states have more than 60% population earningbelow poverty line. Some states and union territories havea very low proportion of farm households earning belowpoverty line. Around 12 states have less than 40%population earning below poverty line. These states andunion territories are Telangana (39.7%), Sikkim (38.9%),Gujarat (34.7%), Lakshadweep (34.5%), J&K (32.8%),

Haryana (32.5%), D&N Haveli (31%), Meghalaya (30%),Punjab (26.4%), Kerala (26.3%), Chandigarh (17%) andDelhi (9.1%). All the other states have a population 40%to 60% earning below poverty line.

7.2 Indebtedness among Farm Households in India

Table 7.2 provides the details on percentage of farmhouseholds having outstanding loans, the percentage offarm households which had outstanding loans as on 2002-03, changes since then and the average outstanding loanand average outstanding loan across different states andgroups of union territories in India.

TABLE 7-3 INDEBTEDNESS AMONG FARM HOUSEHOLDS ACROSS INDIAN STATES

% Farm % Farm Change in % AverageHoueholds Households Households Average Outstanding

outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Loan AmountLoan Loan 2002-03 Loan Loan Amount per Ha

1 2 3 4 5 6

Andhra Pradesh 93% 82% 11% 123112 83363

Arunachal Pradesh 19% 6% 13% 5363 3186

Assam 18% 18% -1% 3436 3186

Bihar 42% 33% 9% 16333 27375

Chhattisgarh 37% 40% -3% 1023 8244

Gujarat 43% 52% -9% 38124 29894

Haryana 42% 53% -11% 79032 56141

Himachal Pradesh 28% 33% -6% 28039 50028

Jammu & Kashmir 31% 32% -1% 12176 24167

Jharkhand 29% 21% 8% 5650 9000

Karnataka 77% 62% 16% 97205 58848

Kerala 78% 64% 13% 213588 357535

Madhya Pradesh 46% 51% -5% 32117 22379

Maharashtra 57% 55% 3% 54733 35111

Manipur 24% 25% -1% 6072 7054

TABLE 7-1 FARM HOSEHOLDS EARNING LESS THAN POVERTY LINE—CONTD.

1 2 3 4

June, 2015 63

Meghalaya 2% 4% -2% 1375 1299Mizoram 6% 24% -17% 2906 2784Nagaland 2% 37% -34% 601 544

Odisha 57% 48% 10% 28226 38193Punjab 53% 65% -12% 119550 77918Rajasthan 62% 52% 9% 70511 39588

Sikkim 14% 39% -24% 9864 14645Tamil Nadu 83% 75% 8% 115872 129369Telengana 89% — 93450 61157

Tripura 23% 49% -26% 5049 7016Uttar Pradesh 44% 40% 4% 27292 41229Uttaranchal 51% 7% 44% 35555 73189

West Bengal 52% 50% 1% 17756 40539Group of Union Territories 27% 51% -24% 52316 78010All India 52% 49% 3% 46945 45318

From Table 7.2, we observe that 52% of farmhouseholds were under debt in 2012-13 while 49% farmhouseholds were under debt. Andhra Pradesh (93%),Telangana (89%), Tamil Nadu (83%), Kerala (78%),Karnataka (77%), Rajasthan (62%), Odisha (57%),Maharashtra (57%) and Punjab (53%) had higher than AllIndia share (52%) farmers who had outstanding loans. Theshare of farm households having outstanding loansincreased by a high percentage in Uttaranchal (44%),Karnataka (16%), Kerala (13%), Arunachal Pradesh (13%),Andhra Pradesh (11%) and Odisha (10%). This sharedecreased among smaller states, group of union territories,Punjab (12%), Haryana (11%) and Gujarat (9%). Theaverage outstanding loan in 2012-13 was INR 46,945across all households and was above INR 1,00,000 in states

of Kerala (INR 2,13,588), Andhra Pradesh INR 1,23,112),Punjab (INR 1,19,550) and Tamil Nadu (INR 1,15,872).The average outstanding loan per ha was INR 45,318 acrossall India. This amount was more than INR 1,00,000 for thestates of Kerala (INR 3,57,535) and Tamil Nadu (1,29,369).

7.3 Inequality among Farm Households in India

Income inequality is generally measured by Ginicoefficient. We measure income inequality of farmhouseholds in India. Also, to understand which the incomecomponents that contribute to income inequality more, wediscompose Gini coefficient by factor components usingmethod suggested by Lerman and Yitzakhi (1985). Theresulting decomposition is presented in Table 7.2

TABLE 7-2 DECOMPOSITION OF GINI COEFFICIENT OF INCOME

Share of Source Source Share Percent changein Total Income Gini Gini Correlation S

kG

kR

kS

kG

kR

k

Source (k) (Sk) (G

k) (R

k) G G

Income From 0.46 0.74 0.80 0.49 0.027Farming

Income From 0.14 0.81 0.64 0.13 -0.012Livestock

Income From 0.08 0.96 0.70 0.10 0.016Nonfarm Business

Income From 0.31 0.77 0.66 0.28 -0.031Wages/Salary

Household 0.56Annual Income

-Sk

TABLE 7-3 INDEBTEDNESS AMONG FARM HOUSEHOLDS ACROSS INDIAN STATES—CONTD.

1 2 3 4 5 6


From Table 7.2, we find that the Gini coefficient oftotal income among farm households in India is 0.56, whichis a high number. The Gini among component incomeswould be higher as not all households are involved in allactivities and the zero incomes would play a role in highercomponent Gini. The Gini for farming income (G

k) is 0.74.

The same (Gk) for livestock incomes, nonfarm business

incomes and wage incomes are 0.81, 0.96, 0.77. The highestGini is in nonfarm business incomes followed by livestockincome, wage income and farming income. This does notmean that the income component with highest inequalitywill contribute highest to total income inequality as theshare of income and distribution of the income willmatter.The share of total income (S

k) is highest for farming

(46%) followed by wage income (31%), livestock income(14%) and nonfarm business income (8%). Anothercomponent needs to be understood before we estimate theimpact of a component on income inequiality. That is calledthe Gini correlation (R

k). This indicate how correlated is a

particular component with total income distribution. If farmhouseholds earning high incomes from farming are the oneswho earn high total incomes, then the Gini correlation forfarming income will be high. If farm households belongingto lower total income strata earn high farming income, thenthis correlation will be low. So, a low Gini correlation meansthat a particular income source is biased towards the lowerincome strata and is likely to reduce income inequality. Inthis regard, we find that the Gini correlation is highest forfarming income (0.80) followed by nonfarm businessincome (0.70), wage income (0.66) and livestock income(0.64). From these three things (Share (S

k), component Gini

(Gk) and Gini correlation (R

k)) of each component income,

we can derive the impact of a particular componenet ontotal income inequality.

From the Table we find that the share of a componentin income inequality (column 5 of Table 7.2) is highest forfarming (49%) and more than its share of income. The shareof nonfarm business income in income inequality is 10%which is again higher than its share in income. For wageincome and livestock income, the shares in incomeinequality are lower than their shares in income. For wageincome the share in income inequality is 28% while theshare in income is 31% while the same for livestock incomeis 13% and 14% respectively. By subtracting values incolumn 5 from column 2 we can estimate the impact ofincome component on total income inequality. Thedifference is provided in the last column of the table. Wefind that cultivation incomes and nonfarm business incomesincrease income inequality where a 1% increase in shareof these income will rise inequality by 2.7% and 1.6%respectively. Livestock incomes and wage incomes areinequality decreasing where a 1% increase in the shares ofthese incomes in total income will reduce income inequalityby 1.2% and 3.1% respectively. So wage incomes andlivestock incomes have potential to reduce inequality as

lower strata earn more incomes from these sources thanthe high income strata. But, this is just the current situation.Nonfarm business needs to be made more equitable byreducing entry barriers pertaining to capital, informationand education in nonfarm business. Livestock incomes havegrown rapidly in the decade under consideration and giventhat it is more equitable than farming incomes, it couldpave way for equitable development among farmhouseholds.

8. Conclusions

This study estimates the incomes of farm households inIndia. For this purpose, the study uses the most recentsurvey that assesses the situation of farmers in India. Thedata 70th round of National Sample Survey (NSS)conducted from January, 2013 to December, 2013 was usedfor the analysis. The survey includes various aspects offarming and pertains to the period from July, 2012 toJune, 2013. The current report primarily focuses on aspectsrelated to incomes of the farmers and particularly incomederived from various components—incomes fromcultivation, incomes from livestock, incomes from nonfarmbusiness and income from wage or salaried employment.The survey was conducted across 35,200 farm householdsacross 36 states and union territories in the first visit and34,907 of these households were visited for a second round.The estimates pertain to population of Households and weuse the weights specified in the NSS for our analysis.

We find that the average annual income of farmhouseholds is INR 77,794 per year or INR 6,498 per month.Out of this the Households earn INR 36,947 from cropcultivation, INR 24,801 from wage/salaried employment,INR 10,017 from livestock and INR 6,209 from nonfarmbusiness. Compared to 2002-03, the share of livestockincomes in total income has increase from 4% to 13% whileincomes from wage and salaried employment have reducedfrom 39% to around 31%. The livestock incomes in thedecade from 2002-03 has seen an annual real CAGR of14.59%. The CAGR in the same decade for cultivationincome, wage income and nonfarm business incomes are4.29%, 1.98% and 0.58%. The farm household incomes intotal grew at a rate of 3.95% in the decade.

Farm households which have nonfarm businessenterprises as their principal income source earn the mostbut they are small in proportion 4.7% of the farmhouseholds have nonfarm business as primary incomesources and earn INR 1,04,593 per annum. Farmhouseholds in the states of Chandigarh, Delhi and Punjabhave the highest income while farm households in Bihar.West Bengal and Uttaranchal have the lowest total incomes.We find that the farm households in states having high wageincomes also have high total income. Also, the states inwhich share of wage income in total income are higherhave high total incomes.State-wise growth rates of incomesof farm households from 2002-03 to 2012-13 shows that

June, 2015 65

Haryana, Rajasthan and Odisha have shown high growthwith Haryana having high growth from crop cultivationwhile Rajasthan and Odisha have high growth largely fromlivestock incomes. Growth rates have been low in Assam,Bihar and West Bengal. All these states have shown verylow or negative growth in cultivation incomes and despitehigh livestock income growth in Assam, the farm householdincome growths in these states have been disappointing.As a general rule, states showing high growth in cultivationincomes and livestock incomes show high growth in totalfarm household incomes as well.

An analysis of landholdings shows a growing declinein land sizes and increasing number of marginal farmers.For landless and marginal farmers, income from wage andsalary employment has become the highest contributor totheir incomes. The growth in real wage income has beenquite low in the decade and this low growth will affectlarge number of farm households if this trend continues.Caste of the household also seems to have a significantinfluence on the incomes of farm households with SC farmhouseholds earning lowest cultivation incomes andlivestock incomes. STs earn the lowest nonfarm businessincome and income from wage and salaried employment.Farm households belonging to Other castes and religionother than Hindu earn the most in all the components ofhousehold income.

The analysis of incomes from cultivation shows thatthe profitability expressed by total value to cost hasincreased from 2.31 to 2.61 in Kharif and 2.45 in Rabi.The low animal labour costs and high machine hiring costs,electricity costs and irrigation costs indicate a highmechanisation in agriculture. Also, the mechanisation asseen from these costs is higher in Rabi as compared toKharif. In analysing the incomes across differentlandholdings we find that profitability does not increaselinearly with land sizes and there might be issues whenland is not large enough to exercise economics of scale.For instance, the profitability of medium farmers is lowerthan semi-medium farmers in Kharif and only slightlyhigher in Rabi. This is a conjecture that has been suggestedby others as well (Sen and Bhatia, 2004). Across states,we find that J&K,Chattisgarh and Assam have highestprofitability while Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and AndhraPradesh have low profitability. Among major crops inKharif, sugarcane and soybean show high profitability whilejowar and tur dal exhibit low profitability. Among majorcrops in Rabi, maize and sugarcane exhibit highprofitability while masur dal and paddy exhibit lowprofitability. Pesticide costs have a negative correlation withprofitability in both seasons. This might indicate thatsuboptimal usage of pesticides and they might be spendingmore than optimal amounts. Machine hiring costs and landlease costs also have negative correlation with profitabilityin both seasons which indicates the importance of landownership and machine owership on profitability. Ifhouseholds own land and machine, they might have to

spend lesser on machine hiring and land lease rent andhave higher profitability. Analysis of profitability andreturns show that farm households possessing land between0.01-0.4 ha and tenant across land classes seem to be doingbad as compared to 2002-03.

The analysis of incomes from livestock shows thatprofitability expressed as ratio of total value to cost is 1.94and 2.2 in Kharif and Rabi. The Rabi profitability is highermainly due to lower costs in feed in Rabi. This might bebecause by-products from Kharif crop cultivation is usedas part of feed in Rabi and thus reduces the feed costs.

The analysis of nonfarm business income shows thatthe profitability expressed as ratio of output to expenses isvery low at 1.35. Wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing,transportation and storage, construction andaccommodation and food services are the major industriesthat provide nonfarm business opportunities. Theprofitability in wholesale and retail trade, the majornonfarm business opportunity provider is very low at 1.19.It is also low for construction at 1.26. The ratio is slightlybetter for accommodation and food service (1.46),manufacturing (1.50) and transportation and storage (1.60).The very low profitability in most business indicates thatfarm households just resort to these for sustainability andnot because these business provides profitableopportunities. Whatever growth is happening in this sectorcould then be only due to distress-driven 'push' factors andnot due to growth-driven 'pull' factors. There has been alot of debate that is unsettled in this regard on the nonfarmexpansion over the last two decades in India and we hopeour finding might give some evidence on recent trends(Abraham, 2009, Bhalla, 2002, Bhaumik, 2002;Binswanger-Mkhize, 2013; Chadha, 2002; Chadha andSahu, 2002; Choudhury, 2011; Coppard, 2001; Himanshu,Murgai and Sterm, 2013' Lanjouw and Sharriff, 2004; Jatav,2010; Jatav and Sen, 2013: Jha, 2007; Jha, 2011; Kashyapand Mehta, 2007; Sahu, 2003).

On analysing the income from wage and salariedemployment, we find that agriculture and construction arethe major industries that provide employment to farmhouseholds. Manufacturing, transportation & storage,wholesale & retail trade, education and publicadministration & defence also provide reasonableemployment to farm households. Agriculture provides moreopportunities in Kharif while construction providesemployment to more farm households in Rabi comparedto Kharif. Construction has thus emerged as leadingindustry providing nonfarm casual employment to farmhouseholds. The low access provided by manufacturing isa disappointment. Households are involved in nonfarmbusiness related to manufacturing. Either impetus shouldbe given to improving profitability of these enterprisesshould be done or more casual labour should be generated.This is particularly a concern keeping low agriculturallabour incomes in mind.


We also performed an analysis of houlseholds earningincomes below poverty line. In this regard, we find thatBihar, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Puducherry andJharkhand have very high proportion of famers earningbelow poverty line while Punjab, Kerala, Chandigarh andDelhi have very low proportion of farm households earningincomes below poverty line. We also find that indebtednesshas increased across the farm households in the countryand states of India. The incidence of indebtedness hasincreased across southern state. Average loan amountoutstanding and average outstanding loan per ha are alsohigh for southern states.

We also calculate income inequality among farmhouseholds and decompose this into factor components.We find that the Gini of incomes earned by farm householdsis 0.56, which is a high number. We also find that incomesfrom cultivation as a leading source of income inequalityas it is highly correlated with total income distribution.Nonfarm business incomes also increase inequality whilewage income and livestock incomes have inequalitydecreasing characteristics. Given that livestock incomeshave also generated high growth rates in the recent timesand provide reasonable profitability compared toagriculture, they must be used as an engine for equitablegrowth. Changing diet patterns which might lead demandfor consumption of food rich in proteins might just providethis impetus.

Few caveats are in place when interpreting thefindings of our report. Any estimation of income is acomplex issue and since households do not have accountsof receipts and expenses, incomes based on only two visitsto a house is always only a raw estimate. The best hope wecould have is that the error are not heterogenous. Also.some income data were collected for 30 day recall periodlike in case of livestock and nonfarm business while forsome incomes 6 month recall period was used. This couldalso have caused some inconsistencies in incomeestimation. Also, incomes from cultivation and livestockare very much sensitive to weather and statistics related togrowth could be prone to some weather related issues inbase and the recent year data used. For example, some statesmight have seen a good growth in the year from, 2002-03to 2011-12 and the year 2012-13 could have been a badyear because of the weather. The growth data will not beable to look into this particular aspect. Though this isapplicable to all income data, it should be considered withslightly more seriousness when dealing with farm andfarmer income data. Cost estimation for certain items infarming were jointly recorded. Crop-wise costs wereallotted proportional to land allotted to the crop but thismay not always be true. This has to be kept in mind whileintepreting crop profitability. Some studies like Agrawaland Kumar (2012), Chandrashekar and Ghosh (2011) andNaik et al. (2012) have also raised some issues related to

official statistics collected in India and these might also bekept in mind while interpreting the results.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham, Vinod. "Employment Growth in ruralIndia: Distress-Driven? "Economic and Political Weekly(2009); 97-104.

Agrawal, Ankush and Vikas Kumar. 2012. "Howreliable are India's official statistics?" East Asia Forum:April 06. Available at http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/04/06/Nagaland-s-demographic-somersault-howereliable-are-india-s-official-statistics/Bhalla, Sheila. "Rural Non-Farm Employment and the Unorganised Sector in India.”The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 45, no 4, (2002);695-717.

Bhaumik, S.K. "Employment Diversification in RuralIndia: A State Level Analysis”. The Indian Journal ofLabour Economics 45, no. 4 (2002); 718-744.

Binswanger-Mkhize, Hans P. "The stunted structuraltranformation of the Indian economy." Economic &Policital Weekly 48, no. 26&27 (2013); 5-13.

Chadha, G.K. "Rural Non-farm Employment in India:What Does Recent Experience Teach US?" The IndianJournal of Labour Economics 45, no. 4 (2002): 663-694.

Chadha, G.K., and P.P. Sahu. "Post-reform setbacksin rural employment: issues that need further scrutiny."Economic and Political Weekly (2002): 1998-2026.

Chandrasekhar, CP and Jayati Ghosh. 2011. "Latestemployment trends from the NSSO." The Hindu, July 12.

Chowdhury, Subhanil. "Employment in India: Whatdoes the latest data show?.” Economic and political weekly46, no. 32 (2011): 23-26.

Coppard, Daniel. "The rural non-farm economy inIndia: A review of the literature.” Natural Resource Institute,Department for International Development (DFID), worldBank, NRI Report 2662 (2001).

Govt. of India. 2005. "Some Aspects of Farming:NSS 59th Round (January-December 2003) Report No.496(59/33/5)." National Sample Survey Organisation,Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation: NewDelhi.

Govt. of India. 2005. "Income, Expenditure andProductive Assets of Farmer Households: NSS 59th Round(January-December 2003), Report No. 497(59/33/5).”National Sample Survey Organisation, Ministry of Statisticsand Programme Implementation: New Delhi

Government of India, 2014. "Key indictors ofSituation of Agricultural Households in India.".

Ministry of Statistics and ProgrammeImplementation. National Sample Survey Office. PlanningCommission, 2014. "Report of the Expert Group to review

June, 2015 67

the Methodology for Measurement of Poverty",Government of India.

Gulati, A. Jain, S and Satija, N. (2013). "Rising FarmWages in India. The 'Pull' and 'Push' Factors", DiscussionPaper No 5. Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices.Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry ofAgriculture, Government of India.

Himanshu, Lanjouw, Peter, Rinku Murgai, andNicholas Stern. "Nonfarm diversification, poverty,economic mobility, and income inequality: a case study invillage India." Agricultural Economics 44, no. 4-5 (2013):461-473.

Lanjouw, Peter, and Abusaleh Shariff. "Rural non-farm employment in India: Access, incomes and povertyimpact. "Economic and Political Weekly (2004); 4429-4446.

Jatav, Manoj. "Casualisation of Workforce in RuralNon-Farm Sector of India: A Regional Level Analysisacross Industries.” The Indian Journal of LabourEconomics 53, no. 3(2010): 501=16.

Jatav, Manoj, and Sucharita Sen. "Drivers of non-farm employment of rural India: Evidence from the 2009-10NSSO Round.” Economic and Political Weekly 48, no26&27 (2013): 14-21.

Jha, Brajesh."Policies for Increasing Non-FarmEmployment for Farm Households in India.” IEG WorkingPaper Number 310. 2011.

Jha, Brajesh 2007.‘‘Is the Role of Agriculture inRural Diversification Decreasing?” Indian Journal ofLabour Economics 50(4): 633-642.

Kashyap, S. P., and Niti Mehta. "Non-farm Sector inIndia: Temporal and Spatial Aspects.” The Indian Journalof Labour Economics 50, no. 4(2007): 611-32.

Lerman, Robert I., and Shlomo Yitzhaki. "Incomeinequality effects by income source: a new approach andapplications to the United States.” Review of economicsand statistics (1985); 151-156.

Naik, Gopal, K. P. Basavaraj, V R Hegde, Vijay Paidi,and Arjunan Subramanian, 2012. "Reliability of agriculturalstatistics in developing counrties: Reflections from acomprehensive village survey on crop area statistics inIndia.” Working Paper No. 381. Indian Insititute ofManagement Bangalore: Bangalore.

Sahu, P.P. "Casualisation of Rural Workforce in India:Analysis of Recent Trends”. The Indian Journal of LabourEconomics 46, n. 4 (2003): 927-939.

Sen, Abhijit and M S Bhatia. 2004. "Volume 14: Costof Cultivation and Farm Income" in the State of IndianFarmer: A Millennium Study. New Delhi: Ministry ofAgriculture and Academic Foundaiton

Appendix A Economics of Cultivation Across Different Land Classes 2002-03

TABLE A-1 ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION FOR DIFFERENT LAND CLASSES (KHARIF) 2002-03

Land Class based on 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ AllTotal Land Possessed (in ha)

Proportion of Farm 28-78% 32.84% 18.09% 10.84% 4.89% 0.91% 100.00%Household

% Cultivating 82.79% 92.03% 91.53% 91.58% 90.52% 90.26% 86.04%

Total Land 0.225 0.581 1.190 2.173 4.336 10.198 1.067

TV (per ha) 14110 13612 12656 11952 11079 8007 12008

Seed Cost 755(12) 822(14) 807(15) 837(16) 862(16) 703(17) 816(15)

Fertilizer 1517 (25) 1388(24) 1279(24) 1138(22) 1195(23) 857(20) 1225(23)

Plant Protection 346(6) 401(7) 417(8) 446(9) 513(10) 421(10) 437(8)

Regular Labour 98(2) 87(1) 87(2) 139(3) 207(4) 310(7) 145(3)

Casual Labour 1473(24) 1444(25) 1259(24) 1164(23) 1126(21) 763(18) 1212(23)

Irrigation 718(12) 541(9) 498(9) 471(9) 414(8) 290(7) 477(9)

Minor Repair 75(1) 94(2) 100(2) 120(2) 110(2) 105(2) 105(2)

Interest 54(1) 67(1) 93(2) 95(2) 105(2) 81(2) 88(2)

Lease rent 292(5) 302(5) 222(4) 215(4) 244(5) 274(7) 250(5)

other rent 748(12) 629(11) 544(10) 480(9) 492(9) 378(9) 531(10)

Total Cost (TC) (per ha) 755(12) 822(14) 807(15) 837(16) 862(16) 703(17) 816(15)

TV-TC (per ha) 8037 7839 7355 6848 5811 3827 6725

TV/TC 2.32 2.36 2.39 2.34 2.10 1.92 2.27

NOTE: Value and costs are in per ha terms. Figures in brackets indicate the share of a particular cost component in total cost


TABLE A-2 ECONOMICS OF CULTIVATION FOR DIFFERENT LAND CLASSES (RABI) 2002-03

Land Class based on 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ AllTotal Land Possessed (in ha)

Proportion of Farm 28-78% 32.84% 18.09% 10.84% 4.89% 0.91% 100.00%Household

% Cultivating 65.24% 61.18% 64.09% 62.87% 66.77% 57.57% 61.40%

Total Land 0.202 0.637 0.987 1.645 3.175 7.498 0.874

TV (per ha) 19552 14713 16206 166.35 16101 13710 15976

Seed Cost 1177(18) 1527(18) 1118(17) 1211(17) 1166(17) 1059(16) 901(16)

Fertilizer 1358 (21) 2071(24) 1459(23) 1559(22) 1437(21) 1370(21) 1010(18)

Plant Protection 192(3) 373(4) 307(5) 356(5) 359(5) 457(7) 390(7)

Regular Labour 28(0) 84(1) 59(1) 88(1) 118(2) 199(3) 339(6)

Casual Labour 810(13) 1359(16) 1070(17) 1174(17) 1125(17) 1112(17) 968(18)

Irrigation 1219(20) 1510(17) 1059(17) 1160(16) 1044(15) 939(14) 613(11)

Minor Repair 47(1) 71(1) 82(1) 128(2) 142(2) 159(2) 132(2)

Interest 13(0) 18(0) 34(1) 41(1) 42(1) 49(1) 71(1)

Lease rent 519(8) 394(5) 328(5) 295(4) 392(6) 431(7) 513(9)

other rent 1039(16) 1253(14) 892(14) 1023(15) 929(14) 850(13) 576(10)

Total Cost (TC) (per ha) 8660 6407 7035 6755 6624 5514 6750

TV-TC (per ha) 10892 8306 9171 9879 9477 8196 9225

TV/TC 2.32 2.36 2.39 2.34 2.10 1.92 2.27

Note: Value and costs are in per ha terms. Figures in brackets indicate the share of a particular cost component in total cost

Appendix B Tenancy Across States and Land Classes in 2012-13 and 2002-03

TABLE B-1 TENANCY ACROSS STATES AND LAND CLASSES IN 2012-13

0.01 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

Jammu & Kashmir 3.54% 0.17% 1.64% 2.43% 0.53% 11.15% 0.00% 0.91%

Himachal Pradesh 5.62% 7.43% 10.56% 16.14% 9.55% 2.22% 0.00% 9.30%

Punjab 2.84% 14.53% 9.36% 28.56% 29.96% 58.07% 69.74% 22.55%

Chandigarh 0.00% 0.00% 2.27% 0.00% 32.75% 0.00% 0.00% 3.71%

Uttaranchal 13.98% 10.32% 7.34% 1.96% 0.00% 7.71% 0.00% 8.78%

Haryana 0.00% 8.80% 13.52% 18.25% 10.80% 36.55% 32.10% 13.91%

Delhi 0.00% 19.35% 0.00% 4.34% 0.00% 87.50% 0.00% 6.28%

Rajasthan 1.41% 4.42% 6.07% 6.58% 16.52% 26.59% 11.14% 9.38%

Uttar Pradesh 0.63% 16.98% 17.50% 15.51% 18.30% 17.95% 36.25% 16.43%

Bihar 0.00% 32.41% 27.41% 32.64% 16.09% 4.86% 26.09% 29.28%

Sikkim 0.00% 31.30% 16.34% 5.77% 0.94% 0.00% 0.00% 17.24%

Arunachal Pradesh 2.12% 0.00% 7.84% 2.46% 11.67% 5.24% 0.00% 6.64%

Nagaland 0.54% 0.23% 2.18% 5.80% 5.51% 6.61% 0.00% 3.25%

Manipur 0.00% 7.65% 11.72% 7.94% 12.90 0.00% 0.00% 9.56%

Mizoram 0.00% 0.00% 2.33% 0.09% 5.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1.89%

Tripura 0.00% 22.38% 18.86% 9.21% 22.84% 0.57% 0.00% 18.38%

Meghalaya 16.45% 12.30% 6.09% 11.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.56%

Assam 1.33% 3.36% 13.83% 14.74% 10.62% 2.61% 100.00% 11.22%

June, 2015 69

West Bengal 0.93% 38.22% 35.54% 33.46% 63.26% 20.39% 100.00% 37.18%

Jharkhand 0.00% 5.56% 16.03% 10.97% 3.92% 5.92% 0.00% 10.71%

Odisha 5.10% 21.84% 26.52% 33.68% 22.78% 43.22% 89.44% 22.99%

Chhatttisgarh 0.00% 30.60% 16.27% 13.13% 21.13% 23.21% 0.00% 17.72%

Madhya Pradesh 2.41% 9.46% 3.12% 8.37% 10.76% 14.23% 22.28% 7.11%

Gujarat 2.16% 0.90% 7.88% 7.57% 11.02% 8.82% 43.85% 6.24%

Daman & Diu 0.00% 2.36% 1.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.85%

D & N Haveli 1.14% 0.94% 0.00% 0.00% 75.95% 0.00% 0.00% 1.11%

Maharashtra 3.22% 1.17% 4.66% 5.49% 6.15?% 10.02% 15.25% 5.21%

Andhra Pradesh 1.10% 13.31% 34.60% 37.92% 40.00% 54.98% 25.45% 35.59%

Karnataka 6.73% 2.17% 9.36% 7.59% 8.76% 34.62% 51.81% 9.97%

Goa 19.92% 13.89% 6.08% 6.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15.41%

Lakshadweep 6.77% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.77%

Kerala 0.00% 14.68% 16.90% 14.25% 26.45% 20.44% 53.63% 15.86%

Tamil Nadu 2.72% 3.93% 11.14% 21.92% 17.33% 20.24% 12.66% 11.30%

Punducherry 13.11% 0.41% 15.67% 15.27% 38.21% 40.29% 0.00% 14.06%

A & N Islands 8.55% 1.86% 2.41% 2.94% 1.70% 0.00% 0.00% 3.37

Telengana 0.00% 0.31% 6.07% 18.32% 24.49% 40.10% 47.10% 14.14%

TABLE B-2 TENANCY ACROSS STATES AND LAND CLASSES IN 2012-13

0.01 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

Jammu & Kashmir 0.00% 0.97% 0.84% 2.13% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00%

Himachal Pradesh 42.52% 8.05% 8.55% 7.39% 18.43% 2.77% 0.00% 8.86%

Punjab 2.76% 4.30% 18.63% 17.17% 30.25% 38.68% 46.23% 14.76%

Chandigarh 0.00% 11.76% 79.61% 41.06% 83.05% 76.36% 0.00% 38.78%

Uttaranchal 0.00% 4.04% 5.37% 8.56% 12.74% 0.00% 0.00% 5.10%

Haryana 0.95% 8.38% 8.46% 16.00% 33.25% 35.85% 23.36% 14.29%

Delhi 0.00% 8.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.42%

Rajasthan 0.13% 0.62% 3.96% 6.49% 7.31% 7.98% 16.97% 5.52%

Uttar Pradesh 1.64% 12.52% 20.39% 23.23% 20.30% 22.45% 11.69% 16.96%

Bihar 2.62% 19.14% 23.82% 21.12% 9.43% 10.74% 0.00% 19.52%

Sikkim 5.77% 21.29% 22.62% 9.58% 12.32% 7.31% 0.00% 19.32%

Arunachal Pradsh 0.61% 15.19% 0.82% 4.79% 6.12% 23.23% 100.00% 7.40%

Nagaland 13.46% 0.00% 1.02% 1.93% 0.46% 0.00% 0.00% 1.49%

Manipur 0.00% 10.81% 15.62% 18.23% 28.88% 24.85% 0.00% 14.60%

Mizoram 0.00% 17.18% 0.60% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.47%

Tripura 0.86% 15.94% 19.27% 25.68% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.12%

Meghalaya 7.76% 13.99% 23.57% 19.57% 3.42% 0.00% 0.00% 17.70%

Assam 0.00% 4.20% 10.19% 16.42% 7.30% 9.07% 0.00% 10.00%

West Bengal 6.12% 19.26% 21.39% 15.84% 11.34% 8.64% 0.00% 19.11%

Jharkhand 0.00% 2.91% 4.45% 4.60% 6.55% 0.00% 0.00% 3.87%

Odisha 10.63% 18.40% 25.01% 29.86% 15.14% 18.48% 100.00% 23.39%

Chhattisgarh 11.24% 4.87% 11.67% 13.07% 16.24% 7.12% 19.17% 11.71%

Madhya Pradesh 0.00% 5.86% 8.33% 7.99% 7.12% 3.66% 11.61% 7.26%

Gujarat 3.03% 3.10% 4.26% 2.27% 4.62% 8.14% 3.45% 3.96%

TABLE B-1 TENANCY ACROSS STATES AND LAND CLASSES IN 2012-13—(Contd.)

0.01 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All


Daman & Diu 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

D & N Haveli 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05%

Maharashtra 3.43% 8.30% 5.40% 4.95% 6.15% 11.43% 10.24% 6.43%

Andhra Pradesh 3.08% 10.49% 16.80% 17.65% 24.47% 22.66% 4.09% 16.92%

Karnataka 10.17% 4.00% 4.64% 2.38% 9.24% 11.23% 25.36% 5.70%

Goa 24.38% 20.67% 1.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.63%

Lakshadweep 2.95% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.63%

Kerala 78.59% 6.62% 8.89% 10.03% 8.71% 10.97% 5.76% 7.69%

Tamil Nadu 4.44% 14.45% 12.85% 15.79% 15.46% 8.02% 3.20% 13.32%

Puducherry 1.24% 7.84% 74.64% 0.00% 67.12% 0.00% 0.00% 25.28%

A & N Islands 43.54% 2.42% 9.33% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.25%

Appendix C Economics of Cultivation of Tenants 2002-03

TABLE C-1 ECONOMIC OF CULTIVATION OF TENANTS (KHARIF) 2002-03


0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

TV 15915(115) 14483(108) 13100(104) 13356(114) 16442(159) 11038(148) 14014(120)

Seed Cost 992(137) 847(104) 831(103) 914(111) 1011(120) 915(138) 904(113)

Pesticide 403(119) 497(129) 418(100) 637(152) 904(197) 838(244) 620(151)

Fertilizer 1828(124) 1573(116) 1395(111) 1318(118) 1489(129) 1321(171) 1448(122)

Irrigation 935(136) 685(132) 594(123) 650(146) 741(202) 540(222) 665(149)

Minor Repair 70(92) 102(110) 110(111) 141(120) 205(213) 190(214) 140(141)

Interest cost 96(196) 97(155) 141(166) 125(139) 175(184) 104(136) 129(159)

Lease rent 2111(4689) 2054(13818) 1531(18526) 1689(19010) 1857(12368) 1512(3345) 1762(10306)

Regular labour 116(122) `64(71) 50(54) 116(82) 168(79) 617(244) 154(107)

Casual Labour 1963(140) 1743(125) 1270(101) 1462(130) 1418(131) 894(121) 1432(122)

Other Expenses 954(132) 748(123) 648(123) 597(129) 695(150) 557(161) 672(132)

Total Expenses 9446(168) 8409(157) 6986(139) 7650(161) 8664(181) 7488(210) 7925(162)

TV-TC 6470(78) 6074(75) 6114(81) 5706(81) 7778(141) 3549(92) 6089(89)

TV/TC 1.68(68) 1.72(68) 1.88(75) 1.75(71) 1.9(88) 1.47(71) 1.77(74)

Table C-2 Economic of Cultivation of Tenants (Rabi) 2002-03


0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

TV 20005103) 17656(124) 17468(109) 18227(111) 20568(135) 15469(117) 18252(117)

Seed Cost 1583(104) 1311(121 1325(111) 1359(120) 1020(96) 849(93) 1239(109))

Presticide 491(139) 443(156) 458(136) 447(130) 635(150) 501(138) 494(143)

Fertilizer 2385(118) 1824(131) 1629(105 1691(121) 1624(123) 972(95) 1670(117)

Irrigation 1706(115) 1384(138) 1226(107) 1241(123) 936(100) 548(87) 1173(114)

Minor Repair 73(103) 72(85) 206(182) 166(120) 224(152) 75(52) 151(129)

Interest Cost 43(298) 42(129) 39(94) 89(267) 160(576) 14(17) 71(199)

Lease Rent 1886(1278) 1742(2014) 1612(3752) 2140(2251) 2454(5253) 1677(759) 1938(2267)

Regular Labour 94(115) 17(26) 85(96) 85(68) 177(87) 142(37) 94(71)

Casual Labour 1587(120) 1374(135) 1241(107) 1304(119) 1490(143) 1366(157) 1367(127)

Other Expenses 1408(115) 1111(130) 987(96) 1305(151) 1049(129) 795(153) 1099(123)

Total Expenses 11256(137) 9319(158) 8807(132) 9826(158) 9768(162) 6941(135) 9296(148)

TV/TC 8749(78) 8337(100) 8661(93) 8401(83) 10800(117) 8528(105) 8956(97)

TV/TC 1.78(75) 1.89(79) 1.98(83) 1.85(71) 2.11(83) 2.23(87) 1.96(79)

TABLE B-2 TENANCY ACROSS STATES AND LAND CLASSES IN 2012-13—(Contd.)

0.01 0.01-0.4 0.4-1 1-2 2-4 4-10 10+ All

June, 2015 71

During the month of May, 2015 the Wholesale Price Index(Base 2004-05=100) of pulses increased by 7.54%, cereals

Commodity Reviews

Foodgrains

decreased by 0.56% foodgrains increased by 1.01%respectively over the previous month.

INDEX NUMBER OF WHOLESALE PRICES

(Base: 2004-2005=100)

Commodity Weight WPI for WPI for WPI Percentagethe month the month A year Change

(%) of May of April ago during2015 2015 A month A year

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Rice 1.793 233.6 234.0 237.8 -0.17 -1.77

Wheat 1.116 213.5 216.4 208.1 -1.34 2.59

Jowar 0.096 286.0 282.6 282.6 1.20 1.20

Bajra 0.115 248.6 247.5 258.7 0.40 -3.94

Maize 0.217 243.6 246.8 234.3 -1.30 3.97

Barley 0.017 221.9 227.8 217.1 -2.59 2.21

Ragi 0.019 329.1 334.4 329.1 -1.58 0.00

Cereals 3.373 230.1 231.4 230.1 -0.56 0.00

Pulses 0.717 284.0 264.1 233.4 7.54 21.68

Foodgrains 4.09 239.5 237.1 230.7 1.01 3.81

Source: Office of the Economic Adviser, M/o Commerce and Industry.

The following Table indicates the State wise trend of Wholesale Prices of Cereals during the month of May, 2015.

Commidity Main Rising Falling Mixed SteadyTrend

Rice Steady Haryana A.P. GujaratJharkhand Assam Kerala

U.P.

Wheat Mixed Karnataka HaryanaU.P.

Jowar Rising A.P. Rajasthan KarnatakaGujarat

Bajra Rising Karnataka Gujarat HaryanaRajasthan

Maize Falling Gujarat Haryana JharkhandU.P. Karnataka

Rajasthan


PROCUREMENT OF RICE

(in Thousand Tonnes)

Marketing Season Corresponding Marketing YearState 2014-15 Period lf last Year (October-September)

(upto 28.05.2015) 2013-14 2013-14 2012-13

Procurem Percentage Procurement Percentage Procurement Percentage Procurement Percentage to total to Total to total to total

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Andhra Pradesh 3248 11.57 5851 21.13 3722 11.76 6464 19.00

Chhatisgarh 3355 11.95 4285 15.48 4290 13.56 4804 14.12

Haryana 2009 7.16 2405 8.69 2406 7.60 2609 7.67

Maharashtra 143 0.51 140 0.51 161 0.51 192 0.56

Punjab 7782 27.73 8106 29.28 8106 25.62 8558 25.16

Tamil Nadu 6 0.02 59 0.21 684 2.16 481 1.41

Uttar Pradesh 1646 5.87 1118 4.04 1127 3.56 2286 6.72

Uttarakhand 461 1.64 407 1.47 463 1.46 497 1.46

Others 9414 33.54 5315 19.20 10678 33.75 8129 23.89

Total 28064 100.00 27686 100.00 31637 100.00 34020 100.00

Source: Department of Food & Public Distribution.

Procurement of Rice2.26 million tonnes of Rice (including paddy convertedinto rice) was procured during May 2015 as against 1.84million tonnes of rice (including paddy converted into rice)procured during May 2014. The total procurement of Rice

in the current marketing season i.e. 2014-15, up to28.05.2015 stood at 28.06 million tonnes, as against 27.68million tonnes of rice procured, during the correspondingperiod of last year. The details are given in the followingtable.

Procurement of WheatThe total procurement of wheat in the current

marketing season i.e. 2015-2016 up to May, 2015 is 26.78

million tonnes against a total of 26.35 million tonnes ofwheat procured during last year. The details are given inthe following Table.

PROCUREMENT OF WHEAT

(in Thousand Tonnes)

Marketing Season Corresponding Marketing YearState 2015-16 Period of last Year (April-March)

(upto 28.05.2015) 2014-15 2014-15 2013-14

Procurement Percentage Procurement Percentage Procurement Percentage Procurement Percentage to total to Total to total to total

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Haryana 6756 25.23 6414 24.34 64.95 23.20 5873 23.41

Madhya Pradesh 7261 27.11 7094 26.92 7094 25.34 6355 25.33

Punjab 9886 36.91 10731 40.72 11641 41.58 10897 43.43

Rajasthan 1195 4.46 1762 6.69 2159 7.71 1268 5.06

Uttar Pradesh 1602 5.98 343 1.30 599 2.14 683 2.72

Others 81 0.30 6 0.092 6 0.02 16 0.06

Total 26781 100.00 26350 100.00 27994 100.00 25092 100.00

Source: Department of Food & Public Distribution.

June, 2015 73

Oilseeds and Edible Oils

The wholesale Price Index (WPI) of nine major oilseedsas a group stood at 215.4 in May, 2015 showing an incraseof 4.1 percent over the previous month. However, it islower by 4.9 percent over the previous year. The WPI ofsoyabean (15.1 percent), groundnut seed (5.6 percent),sunflower seed (2.3 percent), cotton seed (1.6 percent).sunflower seed (1.3 percent) and rape & mustard seed(1.0 percent) increased over the previous month.However, the WPI of gingelly seed (7.2 percent), nigerseed (6.7 percent) and copra (3.5 percent) decreased overthe previous month.

The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) of edible oils asa group stood at 146.3 in May, 2015 showing an increaseof 1.2 percent over the previous month. However, it islower by 0.9 percent over the previous year. The WPI ofcopra oil (3.4 percent), mustard oil (2.5 percent),sunflower oil (2.4 percent), groundnut oil (0.8 percent),cotton seed oil (0.5 percent) and gingelly Oil (0.1 percent)increased over the previous month. However, the WPI ofsoyabean oil (0.9 percent) decreased over the previousmonth.

Fruits & Vegetable

The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) of fruits & vegetableas a group stood at 240.7 in May, 2015 showing a decreaseof 0.8 percent over the previous month. However, it ishigher by 3.1 percent over the previous year.

Commercial Crops

Potato

The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) of potato stood at 135.8in May, 2015 showing an increase of 0.4 percent over theprevious month. However, it is lower by 52.2 percent overthe previous year.

Onion

The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) of onion stood at 312.1in May, 2015 showing an increase of 0.8 percent and 19.4percent over the previous over the previous months andyear, respectively.

Condiments & Spices

The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) of condiments & spices(Group) stood at 313.4 in May, 2015 showing an increaseof 1.0 percent and 12.7 percent over the previous monthand year, respectively. The WPI of chillies (Dry) increasedby 1.3 percent over the previous month. However, WPI ofTurmeric decreased by 0.3 over the previous month andWPI of Black Pepper remained unchanged.

Raw Cotton

The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) of raw cotton stood at199.8 in May, 2015 showing an increase of 5.0 percentover the previous month. However, it is lower by 17.7percent over the previous year.

Raw Jute

The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) of raw jute stood at 311.1in May, 2015 showing an increase of 1.0 percent and 7.3percent over the previous month and year, respetively.


WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX OF COMMERCIAL CROPS

Commodity Latest Month Year % Variation Over

May, 2015 April, 2015 May, 2014 Month Year

OIL SEEDS 215.4 207.0 217.6 4.1 -4.9

Groundnut Seed 245.8 232.7 202.9 5.6 14.7

Rape & Mustard Seed 206.0 203.9 186.7 1.0 9.2

Cotton Seed 167.1 164.4 177.8 1.6 -7.5

Copra (Coconut) 171.8 178..1 185.6 -3.5 -4.0

Gingelly Seed (Sesamum) 324.0 349.1 438.9 -7.2 -20.5

Niger Seed 225.3 241.4 177.1 -6.7 36.3

Safflower (Kardi Seed) 128.2 126.6 189.8 1.3 -33.3

Sunflower 190.8 186.6 185.0 2.3 0.9

Soyabean 231.3 200.9 268.2 15.1 -25.1

EDIBLE OILS 146.3 144.6 145.9 1.2 -0.9

Groundnut Oil 183.9 182.5 162.0 0.8 12.7

Cotton Seed Oil 172.9 172.1 181.4 0.5 -5.1

Mustard & Rapeseed Oil 165.2 161.1 154.8 2.5 4.1

Soyabean Oil 150.0 151.3 155.8 -0.9 -2.9

Copra Oil 161.4 156.1 128.3 3.4 21.7

Sunflower Oil 127.9 124.9 126.6 2.4 -1.3

Gingelly Oil 167.6 167.5 190.1 0.1 -11.9

FRUITS & VEGETABLES 240.7 242.7 235.5 -0.8 3.1

Patato 135.8 135.2 282.6 0.4 -52.2

Onion 312.1 309.6 259.2 0.8 19.4

CONDIMENTS & SPICES 313.4 310.2 275.3 1.0 12.7

Black Pepper 703.1 703.2 721.9 0.0 -2.6

Chillies (Dry) 317.4 313.2 268.0 1.3 16.9

Turmeric 255.5 256.3 214.2 -0.3 19.7

Raw Cotton 199.8 190.3 231.2 5.0 -17.7

Raw Jute 311.1 308.1 289.8 1.0 7.3

June, 2015 75

Statistical Tables

Wages

TABLE 1: DAILY AGRICULTURAL WAGES IN SOME STATES (CATEGORY-WISE)

(In Rs.)

State District Centre Month & Daily Field Labour Other Agri. Herds man Skilled LabourYear Normal Labour Carpen- Black Co-

Working ter Smith bbler

Hours M W M W M W M M M

Andhra Pradesh Krishna Ghantasala Feb., 15 8 292 258 325 NA 200 NA 300 NA NA

Guntur Tadikonda Feb., 15 8 250 200 275 NA 250 NA NA NA NA

Telangana Ranga Reddy Arutala Dec., 14 8 275 225 NA NA NA NA 275 250 NA

Karnataka Bangalore Harisandra Oct., 14 8 250 200 300 225 300 225 350 350 NA

Tumkur Gidlahali Oct., 14 8 250 180 300 180 300 180 300 250 NA

Maharashtra Nagpur Mauda Sept., 14 8 100 80 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Ahmednagar Akole Sept., 14 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Jharkhand Ranchi Gaitalsood April, 12 8 100 100 NA 90 90 NA 170 170 NA

TABLE 1.1: DAILY AGRICULTURAL WAGES IN SOME STATES (OPERATION-WISE)(In Rs.)

Skilled Labours

State District Centre Month Type Normal Ploug- Sow- Weed- Harve- Other Herd- Carpenter Black Cobbler& Year of Daily hing ing ing sting Agri sman Smith

Labour Working LabourHours

Assam Berpeta Laharapara Feb, 15 M 8 250 250 250 250 250 200 350 250 250

W 8 NA NA 200 200 200 NA NA NA NA

Muzaffarpur Bhalui Rasul June, 12 M 8 130 120 80 130 150 120 200 180 250

W 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Bihar Shekhpura Kutaut June, 12 M 8 NA NA 185 NA 185 NA 245 NA NA


Chhattisgrah Dhamtari Sihaba March, 15 M 8 NA NA 150 NA 100 150 250 150 NA

W 8 NA NA 120 NA 100 130 200 NA NA

Rajkot Rajkot Dec., 14 M 8 219 214 156 183 150 184 428 428 344

Gujarat* Dahod Dahod Dec, 14 W 8 NA 164 164 164 136 NA NA NA NA

Haryana Panipat Ugarakheri Feb, 15 M 8 400 400 400 400 400 NA NA NA NA

W 8 NA NA 300 300 300 NA NA NA NA

Himachal Mandi Mandi Dec, 13 M 8 NA 162 162 162 162 NA 260 240 240

Pradesh W 8 NA 162 162 162 162 NA 650 NA NA

Kozhikode Koduvally Feb, 15 M 4-8 1030 600 NA 650 815 NA 700 NA NA

Kerala W 4-8 NA NA 450 500 500 NA NA NA NA

Palakkad Elappally Feb,15 M 4-8 500 500 NA 500 466.66 NA 600 NA NA

W 4-8 NA NA 300 300 300 NA NA NA NA

Hoshangabad Sangarkhera Apr, 15 M 8 200 200 200 200 200 150 400 400 NA

Madhya W 8 NA 200 200 200 150 150 NA NA NA

Pradesh Santa Kotar Apr, 15 M 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


Shyopurkala Vijaypur Apr, 15 M 8 NA 200 NA 200 NA 200 300 300 NA

W 8 NA 200 NA 200 NA NA NA NA NA


Bhadrak Chandbali Feb, 15 M 8 250 NA 250 250 250 250 300 NA NA

Odisha W 8 NA NA 200 200 200 200 NA NA NA

Ganjam Aska Feb, 15 M 8 300 200 200 250 200 200 400 400 400

W 8 NA 100 100 150 100 100 NA NA NA

Ludhiyana Pakhowal July,14 M 8 300 300 300 NA 365 NA 395 395 NA

Punjab W 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Barmer Kuseep Jan, 15 M 8 NA NA NA NA NA 300 700 500 NA

Rajasthan W 8 NA NA NA NA NA 200 NA NA NA

Jalore Sarnau Jan, 15 M 8 350 350 350 350 NA NA 400 400 NA

W 8 NA NA NA 350 NA NA NA NA NA

Thanjavur Pulvarnatham March, 15 M 8 NA 318.75 NA 306 312.62 NA NA NA NA

Tamil W 8 NA 100 115 116 119 NA NA NA NA

Nadu* Tirunelveli Malayakulam March 15, M 8 NA NA NA NA 431.25 NA NA NA NA

W 8 NA 165 152.5 170 262.5 NA NA NA NA

Tripura State Average April, 14 M 8 287 263 264 277 261 270 305 212 285

W 8 NA 197 201 209 197 200 NA NA NA

Meerut Ganeshpur Dec, 14 M 8 275 263 261 263 260 NA 378 NA NA

W 8 NA 198 202 197 203 NA NA NA NA

Uttar Aurraiya Aurraiya Dec, 14 M 8 150 150 150 160 150 NA 250 NA NA

Pradesh W 8 NA NA NA 160 150 NA NA NA NA

Chandauli Chandauli Dec, 14 M 8 NA 200 200 200 200 NA 350 NA NA


M-ManW-WomanNA-Not Available

*States reported district average daily wages.

TABLE 1.1: DAILY AGRICULTURAL WAGES IN SOME STATES (OPERATION-WISE)—(Contd.)(In Rs.)

Skilled Labours

State District Centre Month Type Normal Ploug- Sow- Weed- Harve- Other Herd- Carpenter Black Cobbler& Year of Daily hing ing ing sting Agri sman Smith

Labour Working LabourHours

June, 2015 77

Prices

2. WHOLESALE PRICES OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY PRODUCTS AT SELECTED

CENTRES IN INDIA

(Month end Prices in)

Commodity Variety Unit State Centre May-15 Apr-15 May-14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Wheat PBW 343 Quintal Punjab Amritsar 1500 1600 1405

Wheat Dara Quintal Uttar Pradesh Chandausi 1455 1550 1450

Wheat Lokvan Quintal MadhyaPradesh Bhopal 1419 1352 1520

Jower — Quintal Maharashtra Mumbai 2450 2300 2600

Gram No III Quintal Madhya Pradesh Sehore 4165 3650 2537

Maize Yellow Quintal Uttar Pradesh Kanpur 1510 1415 —

Gram Split — Quintal Bihar Patna 4725 4600 4500

Gram Split — Quintal Maharashtra Mumbai 4300 4050 4550

Arhar Split — Quintal Bihar Patna 7975 7310 6765

Arhar Split — Quintal Maharashtra Mumbai 8000 7300 7400

Arhar Split — Quintal NCT of Delhi Delhi 6500 6335 6345

Arhar Split Sort II Quintal Tamil Nadu Chennai 9700 9400 6500

Gur — Quintal Maharashtra Mumbai 3250 3200 3600

Gur Sort II Quintal Tamil Nadu Coimbatore 3800 3800 —

Gur Balti Quintal Uttar Pradesh Hapur 2250 2400 2600

Mustard Seed Black (S) Quintal Uttar Pradesh Kanpur 3620 3450 3200

Mustard Seed Black Quintal West Bengal Raniganj 4350 3750 3500

Mustard Seed — Quintal West Bengal Kolkata 4500 4100 3500

Linseed Bada Dana Quintal Uttar Pradesh Kanpur 4240 4200 4160

Linseed Small Quintal Uttar Pradesh Varanasi 3960 — 3785

Cotton Seed Mixed Quintal Tamil Nadu Virudhunag 1350 1600 1700

Cotton Seed MCU 5 Quintal Tamil Nadu Coimbatore 2000 2000 —

Castor Seed — Quintal Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad 4000 3600 3550

Seasamum Seed White Quintal Uttar Pradesh Varanasi 13790 13800 6310

Copra FAQ Quintal Kerala Alleppey 8750 9800 10500

Groundnut Pods Quintal Tamil Nadu Coimbatore 4500 4500 —

Groundnut — Quintal Maharashtra Mumbai 5900 6000 5800

Mustard Oil — 15 Kg. Uttar Pradesh Kanpur 1323 1223 1215

Mustard Oil Ordinary 15 Kg. West Bengal Kolkata 1463 1275 1185

Groundnut Oil — 15 Kg. Maharashtra Mumbai 1410 1425 1125

Groundnut Oil Ordinary 15 Kg. Tamil Nadu Chennai 1590 1545 1275


Linseed Oil — 15 Kg. Uttar Pradesh Kanpur 1479 1425 1515

Castor Oil — 15 Kg. Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad 1305 1163 1208

Seasamum Oil — 15 Kg. NCT of Delhi Delhi 1850 1855 2245

Seasamum Oil Ordinary 15 Kg. Tamil Nadu Chennai 2175 2325 2250

Coconut Oil — 15 Kg. Kerala Cochin 1905 2093 2295

Mustard Cake — Quintal Uttar Pradesh Kanpur 1950 1860 1800

Groundnut Cake — Quintal Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad 3500 3286 3071

Cotton/Kapas NH 44 Quintal Andhra Pradesh Nandyal 4100 3950 4500

Cotton/Kapas LRA Quintal Tamil Nadu Virudhunag 3606 3806 3806

Jute Raw TD 5 Quintal West Bengal Kolkata 3740 3275 3120

Jute Raw W 5 Quintal West Bengal Kolkata 3670 3225 3050

Oranges — 100 No. NCT of Delhi Delhi 500 500 NA

Oranges Big 100 No. Tamil Nadu Chennai 440 370 650

Oranges Nagpuri 100 No. West Bengal Kolkata 750 750 NA

Banana — 100 No. NCT of Delhi Delhi 333 333 375

Banana Medium 100 No. Tamil Nadu Kodaikkana 499 497 459

Cashewnuts Raw Quintal Maharashtra Mumbai 63000 64000 56000

Almonds — Quintal Maharashtra Mumbai 72000 71000 61000

Walnuts — Quintal Maharashtra Mumbai 68000 68000 64000

Kishmish — Quintal Maharashtra Mumbai 24500 24000 14500

Peas Green — Quintal Maharashtra Mumbai 4000 3900 4700

Tomatoes Ripe Quintal Uttar Pradesh Kanpur 1550 1550 550

Ladyfinger — Quintal Tamil Nadu Chennai 2500 2300 1500

Cauliflower — 100 No. Tamil Nadu Chennai 2250 1700 1900

Potatoes Red Quintal Bihar Patna 700 650 1460

Potatoes Desi Quintal West Bengal Kolkata 680 560 1340

Potatoes Sort I Quintal Tamil Nadu Mettuppala 1656 1448 3389

Onions Pole Quintal Maharashtra Nashik 1000 1000 900

Turmeric Nadan Quintal Kerala Cochin 12000 12000 10000

Turmeric Salam Quintal Tamil Nadu Chennai 7800 8000 9800

Chillies — Quintal Bihar Patna 9200 9190 8540

Black Pepper Nadan Quintal Kerala Kozhikode 59000 56500 66000


CENTRES IN INDIA—(Contd.)



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

June, 2015 79

Ginger Dry Quintal Kerala Cochin 22500 22000 35000

Cardamom Major Quintal NCT of Delhi Delhi 106000 105000 125000

Cardamom Small Quintal West Bengal Kolkata 110000 110000 115000

Milk Buffalo 100 Litres West Bengal Kolkata 3600 3600 3600

Ghee Deshi Deshi No1. Quintal NCT of Delhi Delhi 29015 29682 30015

Ghee Deshi — Quintal Maharashtra Mumbai 46000 43000 35000

Ghee Deshi Desi Quintal Uttar Pradesh Kanpur 34800 34600 32000

Fish Rohu Quintal NCT of Delhi Delhi 8100 9100 9500

Fish Pomphrets Quintal Tamil Nadu Chennai 36000 33500 36500

Eggs Madras 1000 No. West Bengal Kolkata 3500 3600 3500

Tea — Quintal Bihar Patna 21050 21050 20250

Tea Atti Kunna Quintal Tamil Nadu Coimbatore 35000 35000 —

Coffee Plant-A Quintal Tamil Nadu Coimbatore 30000 30200 —

Coffee Rubusta Quintal Tamil Nadu Coimbatore 15200 15500 —

Tobacco Kampila Quintal Uttar Pradesh Farukhabad 4400 5000 4850

Tobacco Raisa Quintal Uttar Pradesh Farukhabad 3400 3600 3800

Tobacco Bidi Tobacco Quintal West Bengal Kolkata 3900 3900 3900

Rubber — Quintal Kerala Kottayam 11650 10500 14000

Arecanut Pheton Quintal Tamil Nadu Chennai 30250 29900 29700


CENTRES IN INDIA—(Concld)



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


3. MONTH END WHOLESALE PRICES OF SOME IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN INTERNATIONAL MARKETS DURING YEAR 2015

Commodity Variety Country Centre Unit Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cardamom Guatmala Bold Green U.K. — Dollar/M.T. 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00

Rs./Qtl 74160.00 74100.00 75396.00 75948.00 76596.00

Cashew Kernels Spot U.K. 320s U.K. — Dollar/lbs 3.60 3.62 3.64 3.68 3.85

Rs./Qtl 49034.59 49267.11 50405.74 51332.75 54162.31

Spot U.K. 320s U.K. — Dollar/MT 7877.32 7932.59 7644.65 8194.35 8431.63

Rs./Qtl 48681.84 48983.74 48031.34 51862.04 53819.09

Castor Oil Any Origin ex tank Netherlands — Dollar/M.T. 1700.00 1525.00 1434.00 1434.00 1434.00

Rotterdam Rs./Qtl 10506.00 9416.88 9009.82 9075.79 9153.22

Chillies Birds eye 2005 crop Africa — Dollar/M.T. 4100.00 4100.00 4100.00 4100.00 4100.00

Rs./Qtl 25338.00 25317.50 25760.30 25948.90 26170.30

Cloves Singapore Madagascar — Dollar/M.T. 10500.00 10500.00 10500.00 10500.00 11200.00

Rs./Qtl 64890.00 64837.50 65971.50 66454.50 71489.60

Coconut Oil Crude Phillipine/ Netherlands — Dollar/M.T. 1080.00 1140.00 1040.00 1085.00 1125.00

Indonesia Rs./Qtl 6674.40 7039.50 6534.32 6866.97 7180.88

Copra Phillipines CIF Phillipine — Dollar/M.T. 679.50 726.00 657.00 682.50 714.00

Rotterdam Rs./Qtl 4199.31 4483.05 4127.93 4319.54 4557.46

Corriander India — Dollar/M.T. 2000.00 2000.00 2000.00 2000.00 2000.00

Rs./Qtl 12360.00 12350.00 12566.00 12658.00 12766.00

Cummin Seed India — Dollar/M.T. 2250.00 2250.00 2250.00 2250.00 2250.00

Rs./Qtl 13905.00 13893.75 14136.75 14240.25 14361.75

Ginger Split Nigeria — Dollar/M.T. 2250.00 2250.00 2250.00 2250.00 2250.00

Rs./Qtl 13905.00 13893.75 14136.75 14240.25 14361.75

Groundnut US 2005, 40/50 European — Dollar/M.T. 1350.00 1350.00 1350.00 1320.00 1250.00

kernels Ports Rs./Qtl 8343.00 8336.25 8482.05 8354.28 7978.75

Groundnut Oil Crude any origin CIF U.K. — Dollar/M.T. 1200.00 1200.00 1200.00 1200.00 1200.00

Rotterdam Rs./Qtl 7416.00 7410.00 7539.60 7594.80 7659.60

Maize U.S.A. Chicago C/56 lbs 373.25 375.75 395.00 372.50 349.50

Rs./Qtl 906.53 911.86 975.34 926.52 876.73

Oats Canada Winnipeg Dollar/M.T. 365.75 341.64 352.54 315.21 297.89

Rs./Qtl 2260.34 2109.63 2215.01 1994.96 1901.43

Palm Kernal Oil Crude Netherlands — Dollar/M.T. 945.00 1070.00 980.00 990.00 945.00

Malaysia/Indonesia Rs./Qtl 5840.10 6607.25 6157.34 6265.71 6031.94

Palm Oil Crude Netherlands — Dollar/M.T. 630.00 678.00 658.00 655.00 648.00

Malaysian/Sumatra Rs./Qtl 3893.40 4186.65 4134.21 4145.50 4136.18

Pepper (Black) Sarawak Black lable Malaysia — Dollar/M.T. 10000.00 11000.00 11000.00 11000.00 12000.00

Rs./Qtl 61800.00 67925.00 69113.00 69619.00 76596.00

Rapeseed Canola Canada Can 449.80 458.50 460.60 445.10 468.90

Winnipeg Dollar/M.T. 2204.02 2264.53 2319.12 2318.97 2408.74

UK delivered U.K. — Pound/M.T. 242.00 240.00 233.00 242.00 247.00

rapeseed delivered Rs./Qtl 2254.96 2285.04 2175.06 2305.29 2414.92

Rapeseed Oil Refined bleached and U.K. — Pound/M.T. 577.00 586.00 601.00 587.00 607.00

deodorised Rs./Qtl 5376.49 5579.31 5610.34 5591.76 5934.64

Soyabean Meal UK produced 49% oil U.K. — Pound/M.T. 334.00 319.00 317.00 306.00 294.00

& protein Rs./Qtl 3112.21 3037.20 2959.20 2914.96 2874.44

Soyabean Oil U.S.A. — C/lbs Rs./Qtl 30.34 31.71 31.04 31.56 31.73

4132.53 4315.64 4298.34 4402.34 4463.82

Soyabean Oil Refined bleached and U.K. — Pound/M.T. 756.00 611.00 593.00 558.00 595.00

deodorised Rs./Qtl 7044.41 5817.33 5535.66 5315.51 5817.32

June, 2015 81

Soyabeans US No. 2 yellow Netherlands Dollar/M.T. 420.90 409.40 418.00 392.80 380.90

Chicago Rs./Qtl 2601.16 2528.05 2626.29 2486.03 2431.28

U.S.A. — C/60 lbs 970.25 1007.75 978.75 970.50 927.00

Rs./Qtl 2200.59 2283.79 2256.86 2254.22 2171.55

Sunflower seed Refined bleached and U.K. — Pound/M.T. 664.00 656.00 665.00 672.00 715.00

Oil deodorised Rs./Qtl 6187.15 6245.78 6207.78 6401.47 6990.56

Tallow High grade delivered U.K. London Pound/M.T. 295.00 295.00 290.00 330.00 335.00

Rs./Qtl 2748.81 2808.70 2707.15 3143.58 3275.30

Wheat U.S.A. Chicago C/60 lbs 505.25 497.75 519.00 498.75 487.75

Rs./Qtl 1145.94 1128.01 1196.74 1158.47 1142.58

Source: Public Ledger

Exchange Rate Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May

US Dollar 61.80 61.75 62.83 63.29 63.83

CAN Dollar 49.00 49.39 50.35 52.10 51.37

UK Pound 93.18 95.21 93.35 95.26 97.77

3. MONTH END WHOLESALE PRICES OF SOME IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN INTERNATIONAL MARKETS

DURING YEAR 2015—(Contd.)

Commodity Variety Country Centre Unit Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Crop Production

4. SOWING AND HARVESTING OPERATIONS NORMALLY IN PROGRESS DURING JULY, 2015

State Sowing Harvesting

(1) (2) (3)

Andhra Pradesh Winter Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra Maize (K), Ragi (K), Autumn rice.Small Millets (K), Tur (K), Urad (K), Mung (K),Other Kharif Pulses, Ginger, Chillies (Dry), Groundnut,Castorseed, Sesamum, Cotton, Mesta, Sweet Potato,Turmeric, Sannhemp, Nigerseed, Onion, Tapioca.

Assam Winter Rice, Castorseed. Autumn Rice, Jute.

Bihar Autumn Rice, Winter Rice, Jowar (K) Bajra, Maize,Ragi, Jute.Small Millets (K) Tur (K), Groundnut, Castorseed, Sesamum, Cotton, Jute, Mesta.

Gujarat Winter Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra, Maize, Ragi, Small —Millets (K), Tur (K), Urad (K), Mung (K), Other KharifPulses, Chillies (Dry), Tobacco, Groundnut, Castorseed,Sesamum, Cotton, Sannhemp.

Himachal Pradesh Summer Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra, Ragi, Small Millets (K) Winter Potato (Hills).Urad (K), Mung (K), Other Kharif Pulses, Chillies (Dry),Sesamum, Sennhemp, Sumer Potato (Plains).

Jammu & Kashmir Autumn Rice, Jowar (K) Bajra, Small Millets (K), Tobacco, Sesamum, Onion.Urad (K), Mung (K), Winter Potato, Ginger, Tobacco,sesamum, Jute, Onion.

Karnataka Autumn Rice, Winter Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra, Maize, —Ragi, Small Millets (K), Tur (K), Urad (K), Mung (K),Other Kharif Pulses, Winter Potato (Plains), SummerPotato (Plains) Black Pepper, Chillies (Dry), Tobacco,Groundnut, Castorseed, Sesamum, Cotton, Mesta, SweetPotato, Turmeric, Sannhemp, Nigerseed, Onion, Tapioca.

Kerala Ragi, Sweet Potato, Tapicoa. Sesamum, Tapioca.

Madhya Pradesh Autumn Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra, Maize, Ragi, Small —Millets (K), Tur (K), Mung (K), Other Kharif Pulses,Summer Potato, Ginger, Chillies (Dry), Tobacco,Groundnut, Castorseed, Sesamum, Cotton, Jute, Mesta,Sweet Potato, Turmeric, Sannhemp, Nigerseed.

Maharashtra Winter Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra, Maize, Ragi Small Millets —(K), Tur (K), Urad (K), Mung (K), Other Kharif Pulses,Summer Potato (Plains), Chillies (Dry) Tobacco,Groundnut, Castorseed, Sesamum, Cotton, Jute, Mesta,Sannhemp, Nigerseed.

Manipur Winter Rice, Tur (K), Sesamum (K), Sweet Potato, —Maize.

Orissa Winter Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra, Maize, Ragi, Small Chillies (Dry.)Millets (K), Summer Potato (Plains), Chillies (Dry),Groundnut, Castorseed, Cotton, Mesta

Punjab and Autumn Rice, Summer Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra, Maize, Small Millets, (K), Potato.Haryana Ragi, Small Millets (K), Tur (K), Urad (K), Mung (K),

Other Kharif Pulses, Groundnut, Castorseed, SweetPotato Turmeric, Sannhemp.

Rajasthan Autumn Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra, Maize, Small Millets —(K), Tur (K), Urad (K), Mung (K), Other Kharif Pulses,Chillies (Dry), Groundnut, Castorseed, CottonSannhemp.

Tamil Nadu Autumn Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra, Ragi, Small Millets (K), Jowar (R), Summer Potato (Hills),Tur (K), Urad (K), Summer Potato (Hills), Chillies (Dry), Chillies (Dry), Sesamum, Cotton,Groundnut, Castorseed, Seasamum, Cotton, Sannhemp, Sannhemp.Onion, Tapioca.

Tripura Winter Rice, Urad (K), Mung (K), Sesamum. Onion, Autumn Rice.

Uttar Pradesh Autumn Rice, Winter Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra Maize, Small Millets (R), Chillies (Dry).Small Millets (K), Tur (K), Urad (K), Mung (K), OhterKharif Pulses Ginger, Groundnut, Castorseed,Sannhemp, Nigerseed, Tapicoca.

West Bengal Autumn Rice, Winter (Rice), Tur (K), Ginger, Chillies Chillies (Dry), Sesamum.(Dry).

Delhi Summer Rice, Jowar (K), Bajra, Maize, Tur (K), Urad Winter Potato (Plains), Onion.(K), Mung (K), Other Kharif Pulses, Summer Potato(Plains), Chillies (Dry), Cotton, Sweet Potato.

Andaman & Nicobar Autumn Rice, Winter Rice. —Islands

(K)—Kharif. (R)— Rabi


GMGMGIPMRND—1359agri.(S3)—16.7.2015

4. SOWING AND HARVESTING OPERATIONS NORMALLY IN PROGRESS DURING JULY, 2015—(Contd.)

State Sowing Harvesting

(1) (2) (3)

PRINTED BY THE MANAGER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002AND PUBLISHED BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054

Copies are available at:The Controller of Publications, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054

Periodicals

Agricultural Prices in India

Agricultural Wages in India(Bilingual)

Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops

District-wise Area and Production of Principal crops in India

Year Book of Agro-Economic Research Studies

Land Use Statistics at a Glance (Bilingual)

Farm Harvest Prices of Principal crops in India

Agricultural Statistics at a Glance

List of other Publications of the Directorate

ISSN 0002-167Regn.No.:840

P. Agri. 21-06-2015600

PRINTED BY THE MANAGER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002AND PUBLISHED BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054


Periodicals


Agricultural Wages in India(Bilingual)



Year Book of Agro-Economic Research Studies

Land Use Statistics at a Glance (Bilingual)





P. Agri. 21-06-2015600

PRINTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002AND PUBLISHED BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054-2015


Periodicals



Agricultural Wages in India




Glimpses of Indian Agriculture

Land Use Statistics at a Glance



P. Agri. 21-06-2015450

agricultural situation in indiaagricultural situation in india vol. lxxii june, 2015 no. 3 contents...

Documents